Are there any Democrats with a backbone left to actually confront this mentally insane little shit running our country?
Inquiring minds would love to know.....
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 8, 2006 11:25 AMHere's a link to the NewYorker piece.
Can we have please get someone else to run the country?
Posted by Mary at April 8, 2006 11:34 AMHe'd be more likely to listen to a Republican, if they hadn't all sold their souls to the devil for some of that Preznit Codpiece action.
Posted by Zappatero at April 8, 2006 11:36 AMI made a similar statement a few months ago on another web site, when this same topic came up.
If the Bushies had used nuclear weapons in Iraq, the current debate about whether or not WMD's existed would be moot. They could simply say that all of the WMD's were destroyed in the nuclear inferno.
The Bushies at this point are left with no other option. By fabricating intelligence on Iraq prior to the start of hostilities, they've pretty much destroyed the U.S. intelligence communities credibility. At least in my eyes they have.
So what's real in Iran? Is U.S. intelligence really on to something, or are the Bushies just making shit up again? If you drop a bunch of Nukes, it doesn't matter. Remember, all the evidence is destroyed in the nuclear inferno.
The bigger question, and it was touched on in the Hersh article, what is the rest of the world going to do once we start dropping nuclear weapons in the middle east?
Posted by Anonymous at April 8, 2006 11:54 AMUm, we can't really be surprised, can we? I mean, anyone who's read the website of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and their insane document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, knows that the plans to attack the "Axis of Evil" had been devised long ago, in the mid-1990s, when Clinton was president.
I keep telling people around me about their agenda. How come their contempt for the American people and the world doesn't seem to sink in? It's taken this long for Shrub's approval rating to get down into the mid-30s. Why? And who in the world are those 30s% that still support the guy? Seriously, you'd either have to be a sociopath, happily deluded or command the intellectual capacity of a gerbil.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at April 8, 2006 11:58 AMZappatero-
You are right. Someone like a Dennis Kucinich should stand up in the House and a Russ Feingold in the Senate to remind the Republicans that the oath they took was to protect and defend the United States Constitution instead of allowing Bush to invade and start wars whenever he so desires. Failing that, it may come down to someone in the military who may, hopefully, realize that the order that Bush gives to bomb Iran is an immoral one and will refuse to carry out Bush's phony, if not insane, reason to start dropping bombs on another country.
Posted by Erroll at April 8, 2006 12:05 PMIt's up to the UN Security Council and the rest of the civilized world to attempt to control the insane Nero Jr at this point. They have sat around watching Team Insanity for quite some time now, and they must step up to the plate.
If they haven't figured out by now that Nero is an impulsive, reckless buffoon, with no responsible advisors around him, then they never will.
There's nothing we can do. The center/left has no power, no voice. Street demonstrations are meaningless in the state controlled media, politically segregated society we live in. There's never been a national strike, and no method of organizing one.
This is what it means to live in a militaristic, authoritarian state. Get used to it---the vast majority of American shitbrains already have.
Posted by euzoius at April 8, 2006 12:06 PMoff-topic for this post, but on-topic for this site:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/London_paper_will_identify_who_forged_0408.html
London paper to expose the identities of the Niger forgers ... "two employees of an embassy in Italy".
Unless RS is messing up the syntax, this would mean that it wasn't forged by Italians, right?
Posted by obsessed at April 8, 2006 12:11 PMTo anonymous upthread.
I think Iran is doomed to be attacked regardless of any diplomacy, or actions taken. Iran is lost to internal American politics, specifically ineffective and stale Republican/Bushist failures.
The reaction of the world will be utter disgust.
I doubt that we will face any comeuppance until we attempt to "correct North Korea." However, I fear that the allies of Iran and several Western nations relying on Iran for energy will begin to covertly sabotage US efforts, and supply very advanced weapons to guerrillas and militias who could then fight the US on a more even footing. At present the Iraqis are stuck with aged light infantry weapons and AK-47's, and among the most effective fighters have been snipers armed with old Syrian Mausers, old Mosin-Nagants and ancient Enfields that are one-shot sniping. As in Vietnam, one well placed, skilled, one-shot sniper can tie up whole companies.
Imagine these fighters with really modern anti tank rockets, night vision, body temp cloaking equipment, deeply scrambled radio communication equipment, anti helicopter missles, and a host of other advanced weaponry and driven by a fearful hate and desire for all out revenge, not unlike our hatred and revenge plans for the Japanese in World War 2.
Bush is leading America to ruin, as an attack on Iran will be pure folly. It is going to take decades to correct the failures and blundering of this incompetent administration.
Posted by boilerman10 at April 8, 2006 12:50 PMI fear more, boilerman, I fear many Countries attacking the US.
Bu$hCo has made us a rogue nation; we have already committed International War Crimes. The war in Iraq was preemptive which is an Intl crime.
The UN and others will have to hold this man accountable. It will be very ugly and all of America is in danger of the attacks that will be coming.
It has been reported that they will be terrorist attacks, small sleeper cells unleashing car bombs, etc...
I fear more. I fear Nations themselves attacking us, on US soil, if this monster is allowed to continue.
Posted by Anjha at April 8, 2006 01:06 PMWe don't need to question Bush's intelligence or stability. That is all debatable. What we know for sure is this man has very poor judgment.
Posted by Gary at April 8, 2006 01:49 PMI don't think the nations of Europe are too excited about a nuclear Iran, though. Neither is Israel. I don't think the US has to do anything. Either the UN will unite behind a common mission (including the US), or Israel will take it out.
Posted by muckdog at April 8, 2006 02:00 PMMuck:
It is far from a sure thing that Israel wants to, or feels it necessary to attack Iran. That is the point of the Clemons' piece at the end.
Posted by Steve Soto at April 8, 2006 02:10 PMMuckdog,
Though Europe wouldn't like Iran with atomic bombs, it is widely known that Europe was the place where the meme of "Iran would, on the other hand, be stupid not to have the bomb, considering it is surrounded by nuclear poswers some of whom have either a dislike for Iran proper, or have designs, like Pakistan, on Iran's troubled Balochistan Province."
The bomb is coming anyway. Do we go wild and bomb away, or engage in a diplomacy that like Pakistan puts the bomb away....well out of sight? If it is attack, what losses can we tolerate militarily, economically, and diplomatically? If it diplomacy, is there a limit, and if so what would it be?
Due to Bush's ineptitude, I doubt that either diplomatic, or military solutions will work to our advantage. We're in a lose/lose situation, and the best action might be to to keep talking.
Remember, if Israel attacks, the US will pay for it. Iran will hold the US responsible for the actions of its proxy. If the US attacks the US will pay for it, and disrupted economies in Europe and Asia will find some way to strike back or get the US to stop....it's lose/lose.
Posted by boilerman10 at April 8, 2006 02:24 PM"I have chalked up some of these stories to a futile effort to scare the Iranian leadership into a stronger commitment to negotiations>" -- Steve
I thought right up until a few days before the invasion that there was no way Bush would do something so stupid as to invade Iraq; he's just trying to get concessions from Saddam regarding the No-Fly Zone (not about UN weapons inspections, as the inspectors were already there). Boy, was I wrong.
Moral: Don't expect this administration to act logically and seek negotiation.
Posted by Herman at April 8, 2006 02:34 PMTwo points: First, people need to start asking loud and clear, do we need a third war courtesy of the gang that can't shoot straight? Every Republican, Democrat and independent should be asking that question.
Second, if Bush attacks Iran with conventional weapons, the consequences will be bad enough. If Bush attacks Iran with nuclear weapons, the worldwide reaction will be like nothing this nation has ever seen; and it will not be limited to the Muslim world.
These are not competent people running our government at the moment and Congress and the people who sent our representatives there need to come to grips with it in real world terms. Even more important, Europe, Russia and China better start assuming the American people cannot restrain the idiots in the White House and figure some way to bring this to a diplomatic resolution.
Posted by Craig at April 8, 2006 02:41 PMSeriously, you'd either have to be a sociopath, happily deluded or command the intellectual capacity of a gerbil.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at April 8, 2006 11:58 AM
Liveliest: I beg to differ, in that this statement is an insult to Gerbils everywhere.
Posted by tempus at April 8, 2006 03:02 PMThese are not competent people running our government at the moment and Congress and the people who sent our representatives there need to come to grips with it in real world terms. Even more important, Europe, Russia and China better start assuming the American people cannot restrain the idiots in the White House and figure some way to bring this to a diplomatic resolution.
Craig, You just highlighted what should be the Democrats whole voting message.
Somehow, anyway we need to shock the American people into responding!
What is Bush's obsession with being a savior? Is it at all tied to his religiosity? He claimed he wanted to save Social Security, now he wants to save Iran from itself.
But can he authorize a nuclear attack without Congress? (Especially since he can't even pronounce the word.) Can he merely invoke the "war on terror" and bombs away?
Posted by ann at April 8, 2006 03:23 PMStv, th pnt md bt th rnns ‘rsng p’ nd chngng ldrshp qts t r dsr t hv th ‘ccptbl’ mddl-clss rnns, (y knw, th ns ccltrtd (dctd) n th Wst, lngsd th lttl bsnssmn) wrst cntrl f th rnn gvrnmnt. Ths wld pt s bck t 1979 whn th l crprtns rn th cntry.
Th rnns d ndd hv lrg ppltn f cty-brd fft tht r mst nhppy wtht r nfnt wstrn lfstyl f prn, cd’s f dl dcdnc, tlvsn f prtnd gngstrsm, nbrn nfntcd, nd th cl rlgn f sclr hmnsm t mpwr thr pltclzd nd fmly dsttt wmn, (jst fw mng mny thr dstrctng Wstrn ff-th-shlf-prvrsns jst tchng t jmp nt th pnts f th rnn cty bys). nd, y cn cnt n t tht r C kks hv bn cntnlly grmng ll f th lcl dth sqds t sprd th grms f ndlss rblln by cltvtng mss rsntmnt f th fw dzn r s rlgs rls f cndct. (Bttr t d n r nnt dprvty f rwlln ‘frdm’ thn t sffr rls f cndct bsd pn trdtn.)
s y lrdy knw, th Sht pltcs n rq, wth ts ffltn wth th rnns, ws prtl srprs t th WH cbl whn th dst sttld ftr Pllg . (f w wntd t hv ttl cntrl vr vry rq cty, th trp lvl wld hv bn 300,000...by nw! Bt why hv ttl cntrl f th Vchy rq‘s wld nsst pn thr rnn lls. Ths s th rl stpdty f th WH dckhds n tht thy plnnd fr th sn‘s f shml wld t th ln; ths s th bsln fr Rc‘s sttmnt f ‘1000 mstks‘. W wr ttlly srprsd whn thy nsstd pn btng thmslvs wth chns, gn, f nly t mprss ch thr wth thr mn-md gspl f slly fflctns.)
Whl th Snn grrlls wr hlpfl t th crp l cs n th shrt-rn (bttr t hv th rq grrlls dvdd, fghtng fr th crrct Vchy gvrnmnt cmbntn, rthr thn ttlly lgnd wth rn gnst thr mprl ccprs nd l Rbbr/Brns) t s nt bdng wll wth th Rd srvnts crrntly n pwr n th S. nd ths s th scnd rsn rn s trgtd fr Wstrn pppt gvrnmnt. Rmv th crrnt rnn gvrnmnt nd th rq’s cn d whtvr…w hv th l nd cntrl f th Mddl st l Rsrvs. Wtht th rnns, th rqs rmn mptnt.
Watch the US dollar and oil prices Monday. If either one (or both) go up significantly then the smart money will be buying the story. The US dollar is generally considered a 'safe haven' in times of crisis, and even though the USD could easily get trashed down the road (because of the twin deficits here at home), it may still attract the scared money in the runup to 'war'. Oil and gold prices may or may not rise, depending how strong the USD is, since both are priced in dollars. If the USD jumps a lot, oil and gold may not rise.
If and when the bombs start flying, however, oil should easily rise above $100 per barrel. And Iran would likely strengthen its ties with China.
Posted by Dilbert at April 8, 2006 04:23 PMBoilerman,
Here's something else to consider. China gets a huge chunk, if not all of it's oil from Iran. I'm not sure what the exact percentage is. I've seen many TV blurbs lately about how up and coming China's economy is, and how many cars they've now started driving. I do know that in many Chinese cities, they're now suffering gridlock just like the U.S. What do you suppose their reaction is going to be when that oil supply is suddenly shut off?
Another thing to consider, is the war games the Chinese and Russians were practicing last year, totally excluding the U.S.
Another thing, is the way Bush just out of the blue goes to India, and sprinkles holy water all over India's illegal nuclear program without consulting any other nation. I believe that China and India are NOT on the best of terms.
There are a lot of very disturbing things going on right now, and frankly, it's got me very concerned.
If we start dropping nukes in Iran as a first strike, then we have become the nation that every other nation has to fear. We've become what we are accusing Iran of contemplating.
Posted by Anonymous at April 8, 2006 04:52 PMMoral: Don't expect this administration to act logically and seek negotiation.
We're not dealing with the smartest people in the room.
They're looking down the barrel of a mid-term election. Their immunity from prosecution as they loot the Treasury hangs in the balance
They know that a well-timed war delivered the 2002 mid-terms.
I don't think they're operating on any more sophisticated analysis than 'Hey, it worked last time'.
We know from Iraq that they don't think long-term, they don't do consequences.
It's all about November. They aren't thinking one day beyond then,
Posted by Davis X. Machina at April 8, 2006 05:04 PMWhat is needed is a congressional resolution that will prohibit the president from using "any type of nuclear weapon or derivitive on any first or retaliatory strike against any nation that is not using nuclear weapons against us". That or a similarly worded resolution might be voted up by true conservative or moderates and liberals in BOTH parties and might provide our nation from some of the blowback from a first strike on Iran should that occur.
It seems to me that politically that is all we can hope for in the present atmosphere in Congress. God help us all if a nuclear first strike does take place, even with small nuclear bunker busting munitions.
Stv, d blv tht srl s drvng th ntr Mddl st S drv, bth n trms f pwr crprt plcs nd S pltcl mchntns. t wsn’t tht lng g tht srl knckd t th rq nks, th psychlgcl prcdnc xsts. ndrnth ths rnn l rsrv drv (sng rnn nks s cvr) s, fr th srls, th rltd Syrn dffclty n tht th Krd/srl l ln s bst t g thrgh Syr, nd nt Jrdn. Thrfr, ny strk gnst rn mst smltnsly strk gnst Syr.
Frthr, frm n hstrcl vwpnt, th sngl mst dd vnt rgrdng ths ntr lst cpl f dcds s th nr ttl pthy f ll mddl clss wstrn ‘dmcrcs.’ Ths xtnds dwn vn t th cllg cmps’ whr w nrmlly fnd plnty f rblln gnst stblshd pltcl plcs. Thrfr, vn f th S strks, sng th smllr nks, th DC cbl wll st n th drvr’s st nd mst prbbly cm t lkng bttr n th mnds f r dcl nd fmnzd mddl clss kks. Ths Bbylnn fl wll prvl, s pst pstrs ntd.
“…strategic opening to Iran when they had a moderate elected leadership…”
I take it that those would be the “moderates" who opposed Shiara Law. (Who were they?)
Elected? Yeah, I suppose. But only if you consider that the ballot was restricted.
“…to avoid a thrashing in the midterm elections.”
Perhaps it is to avoid the destruction of the only outpost of Western ideology – dare I say it: progressive thought – in the center of the barbarism that is the Arab (including Iran) world.
“…thinks it is his chance to ‘save Iran’…”
And that makes him an idiot: the only solution is to destroy Iran.
“…when he himself blew up Brewster-Jennings.”
Hang in there boys and girls, Fitzmas is coming.
Stv, ndrnth my bv pst pntng t th srl cnnctn, w hv th psd-Chrstn flshnss cnnctd hr, nfldd wthn th dct f mnpltn, wthn th gs f th ncnt crsds. Frthr, t ws ths sm fls Chrstnty tht nbld th lnch f th sccssfl Znst mvmnt clmntng nt th mdrn Stt f srl. My pnt s tht ll psychlgcl tls r sd by ths pwr lt (crprt lrds). Jst s th ncnt crsds wr n rrr n thr flsh ttmpt t rsh th rtrn f Chrst, t s cncvbl tht t sm lvl f cnscsnss, th ntr crrnt Mddl st dvntr f Dstrctn rlly ds hv bzrr mdrn crsd gnd f ‘rshng Jss.’
Fllwng th mny trl, wh bnfts frm ll ths rcnt pllg dvntrs? Th crprtns nd th srls. Whn w hv Gdlss wrldly grp f ntns, w mst dntfy thr gds: pwr nd mny. Hr w nt th strtng pnt fr ny nvstgtn, b t ntllctl r n ctl ft nvstgtn. Crp, ’m wllng t wgr tht whn w ht rn nd Syr, srl, r s, wll knck t th Mslm msq n Jrslm, (t st-p th rcnstrctn f th Jwsh Tmpl!). ll gngstrs, thr crprt r ncrcrtd, spnd thr tm thnkng p vrs strtgs. nly th crprt gngstrs hv bn plnnng fr 100 yrs.
Soto:
[...]Bush had a chance in the months after 9/11 to make a strategic opening to Iran when they had a moderate elected leadership, and he blew it when he stupidly uttered the "Axis of Evil" schoolboy taunt in the face of repeated offers by the Iranians to help us.
I never knew Bush's rhetoric was so powerful that it could, with a single phrase, completely reconfigure our relationship with Iran.
Your thoughts here, Steve, are a non sequitur.
If the Iranians are so interested in helping us or their neighbors or pursuing peace, in general, they would stop aiding and abetting murderers throughout Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
I have no great desire to see us bomb Iran, but we simply cannot allow the Mohammedan Menace to spread without a check on its nuclear ambitions. Pakistan is bad enough ---and you can see what we have to do to co-opt them.
When you criticize this Administration's efforts to neutralize Iran, you are making it more difficult to achieve what you know we must. Why are you doing this?
Toby - Israel by itself has enough fire power to render Iran virtually uninhabitable. Are you suggesting that Iranian leaders nurse some secret desire to consign the entire country to martyrdom? I think you need to get off that computer at the Baruch Goldstein Memorial Library and give somebody else a turn
Posted by jondee at April 8, 2006 08:33 PM"I have no great desire to see us bomb Iran.." I bet. Grab a gun putz.
Posted by jondee at April 8, 2006 08:35 PM"The Mohammedan Menace". He had a steel cage match against Hulk Hogan once, didnt he?
Posted by jondee at April 8, 2006 08:43 PMHang in there boys and girls, Fitzmas is coming.
Posted by Bagley at April 8, 2006 06:59 PM
*****
BushCorp is incompetent. It is not that they wage war, it is that they know not how or when to wage war, an incompetence more dangerous than cowardice.
This, if it comes to pass, will be the final act of incompetence, the final act of treason.
They will be removed, and their apologists will be punished.
You, more than anyone, should pray for a whopping, mind-blowing, cartel-cleansing Fitzmas.
Posted by God Of War at April 8, 2006 08:45 PMThanks for [surprising] me, Jondee, with your vaguely anti-Jewish hostility.
I'll say it again: the weirdest political shift in American politics in the past decade is the reinfestation of the Left with anti-Israeli attitudes and the concomitant growth of support from the Right for Israel.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 8, 2006 08:48 PMGoldstein stands for all Jews? And, I suppose Son of Sam does too. Go play that card somewhere else; when you get done milking it for all its worth.
Posted by jondee at April 8, 2006 08:59 PMAt least have the character to admit that that was an asshole remark to make, Jondee. "The Baruch Goldstein Memorial Library"? Right. Your moral equivalence is typical of dhimmicrats.
Don't run away from it.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 8, 2006 09:03 PMBut Toby is perfectly free to talk about "The Mohammedan Menace". Blatant effing hypocrisy, mixed with tumescent arrogance, and a soupcon of Orwellian doublethink.
Posted by jondee at April 8, 2006 09:04 PMYeah Toby, it was in the asshole territory, but so was yours.
Posted by jondee at April 8, 2006 09:06 PMBut can he authorize a nuclear attack without Congress? (Especially since he can't even pronounce the word.) Can he merely invoke the "war on terror" and bombs away?
Ann, that's what I keep asking on the comment sections. Can't Congress stop Bush from attacking Iran? Can't they refuse to give him the money he would need?
Anjha, your post expresses my fears also, and with good reason.
Posted by Judith at April 8, 2006 11:31 PM"If we start dropping nukes in Iran as a first strike, then we have become the nation that every other nation has to fear. We've become what we are accusing Iran of contemplating."
Anonymous, how true. Here is what scares the hell out of me. The World, at least those having nuclear weapons, have agreed not to use them over these many years. Of course, I never understood having and making weapons you never intended to use, but that's another story. If we use nuclear weapons on any country, we will opened Pandora's Box for others to follow this same path. In that case, no one is safe, least of all the United States.
But can he authorize a nuclear attack without Congress? (Especially since he can't even pronounce the word.) Can he merely invoke the "war on terror" and bombs away?
Can he? I think we've seen by now that he can, and will, do whatever the hell he feels like doing for a garden variety of perverted reasons, Congress, the Constitution, common sense and the rest of the world be damned.
Of course, I know you mean to ask whether he may, under the Constitution, launch a nuclear attack without Congressional approval, but whatever debate tanspires thereto doesn't matter to him. His is a truly terrible and terrifying administration full of war profiteers, lunatics who rejoice that Armageddon is near, ultra-conservative uber-wonks as unable to admit that their simple-minded hypotheses don't pan out in the real world as were the communist leaders of the USSR, sociopathic political operatives for whom lying to win elections anyway comes as naturally as breathing, and other assorted baffoons.
The animals have taken over the farm, only unlike those depicted by Orwell, these animals did not begin with good intentions. Their road to hell was clearly marked from the outset, and for the moment, there are enough misleaders in Congress who will happily continue to follow those signposts.
I'm just waiting for the talking heads to start blathering about how nuclear warheads are good things for the world, and that liberal scientists have overblown the harmful effects of radiation in the same way they have concocted global warming.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at April 9, 2006 01:03 AMImagine the leverage we would have had to deal with Iran, absent an Iraq invasion. What idiots.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 9, 2006 04:08 AMI'm disappointed that no one noticed the important point that the Joint Chiefs are so against the use of nukes against Iran that they are considering resigning! Think about what this means - that the military leaders are so disgusted with Bu$hCo that they are willing to sacrifice their careers to avoid being a part of what has to be called genocide.
I only hope that they can reach the saner minds of Bu$hCo and halt the pending nuclear holocaust.
Posted by pessimist at April 9, 2006 04:23 AMNone, zero, zip, of our active generals will raise a voice in opposition (let alone resign) over the prospect of an exciting, career advancing strike against Iran.
How many Prusso/German generals opposed the 1940s military expansion of Germany? Exactly none. Don't look to the generals of a militaristic power to strenuously oppose military operations, however much they grouse. In their view, they have tactical nuclear weapons for a reason.
This is being presented as a short term, "limited", possibly one-off, bombing operation, not a ground invasion of Iran. Under our modern (perverted) view of the use of the nation's war powers, Nero Jr has the power to launch this strike without any Congressional discussion/approval whatever. (Not that the Congress would want to have any say, anyway.)
I would guess the majority of shitbrain Americans will support more disastrous military operations against a new "enemy"---at this point in our development, we are a militaristic country through and through. Massive historic trends do not just cease overnight.
The bridge is blown, the engineer is murdered, and the train barrels toward the abyss.
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2006 06:28 AM"I'm just waiting for the talking heads to start blathering about how nuclear warheads are good things for the world, and that liberal scientists have overblown the harmful effects of radiation in the same way they have concocted global warming."
Liveliest Crib, good to see you again on TLC. That statement is entirely plausible, considering "the new reality" that Bush&Co. promised they would create.
Posted by Judith at April 9, 2006 06:59 AMI have no great desire to see us bomb Iran, but we simply cannot allow the Mohammedan Menace to spread without a check on its nuclear ambitions.
Classic fear mongering rhetoric. Damn if that chest beating don't make you feel like a big boy, eh?
You overstate both the speed and the influence that Iran could do such things, all the while completely ignoring the geopolitical fallout (real not imagined) that would occur if we bomb Iran. Bush has facilitated a faster spread of your so-called "Mohammedan Menace" than Iran could hope to achieve. Why you continue to believe what the administration says, over the myriad of expert voices out there is beyond me.
"You don't support bombing of Iran, therefore you support Iran having nuclear capability." You boys need to get out of your compartimentalized "Up or Down" little boxes and accept that the world is al little more complicated than your littleBoy-King can grasp.
Posted by Simp at April 9, 2006 07:44 AMSimp, it must really kill Reactionary "creedists" (like Toby) that their Emperor does not advance the same level of hateful rhetoric that they employ so wantonly. In fact, Nero even mouths platitudes of tolerance and respect for Islam! Must be pretty galling.
Toby's posts uniformly contain such monumental ignorance of international law, geopolitics, history, religion, ethics, military power, leavened with judgment so imbecilic, and frosted with triumphalist, jingoistic propaganda so rancid and appalling, that I cannot believe he really exists as a person. Yet he likely represents the majority view.
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2006 08:33 AM
Listen, it is the job of the administration to plan for anything and everything. We have plans set in place to defend/attack every square inch of this planet, its been our policy since the coldwar.
Did you know we have battle plans inplace to invade Canada if we ever need them?
Just because the administration is brainstorming their options if an attack on Iran is necessary in the future doesnt mean anything.
By the way, for you to believe that Hersh story with all its phantom 'unnamed sources' shows that you are looking for something to indict and condemn Bush over, you're not looking for the full objective truth. But don't feel bad, its typical today, take everything bush does out of context and twist it around against no matter how insignificant it is.
Don't you think if the Administration DIDN'T make sure they were prepared to stop Irans goal of making a nuclear the same people would be complaining? They absolutely would be.
Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Anything that happens in this government will be misconstrued by people for political gains. Use your brain next time when you analyze a article by a crackpot with an agenda.
Posted by Kent at April 11, 2006 01:07 AMUse your brain next time when you analyze a article by a crackpot with an agenda.
Like, for instance... YOU?
Posted by pessimist at April 11, 2006 11:27 AMThe Nuclear bunker buster is one of the most Moronic weapons we have yet to see the white house tout. Conventional buster bunkers work much more cost efectively. Going to war in Iraq while bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, just more stupidity from Bush.
Posted by Edward at April 11, 2006 04:43 PM