So glad to see you posting about politics, Steve.
Posted by Christopher at May 21, 2006 01:05 PMI have feared exactly this.
When I read that 2 aircraft carriers were on their way to the Gulf, I had shivers go down my spine.
The evil bastards surrounding Little Boots know good and well that the only card this administration has left to play is another invasion in hopes of raising public support for Bush and the GOP.
I hope Americans are smart enough to see through this, but I fear the "rally round' the leader' mentality is so deeply entrenched in our culture, that people will fall for it.
Posted by Christopher at May 21, 2006 01:10 PMHow can we stop this insanity short of a coup right here?
Posted by angryspittle at May 21, 2006 01:11 PMThe subject of focus of Steve's post is why I believe the Iranian badge issue flared up just recently, which I've been covering very closely. The wingnut war-o-shere is trying to use every wacko idea to pump up their base to go after Iran. We're down the rabbit hole on sensible solutions on Iran, I fear.
Posted by Taylor Marsh at May 21, 2006 01:21 PMStv, nythng bt Syr?
[Editor: ignore=off]Wow thanks for the insight...I truly believe Bushco is well beyond the political worries about the timing of this strike/ attack on Iran. It's all about advancing their PNAC agenda. They have lied with impunity and pretty much acted above the law and have said they don't need no stinkin checks and balances from Congress or the Judiciary! No one has stopped them...no one! They have effectively neutered and disregarded anyone and everyone that has potentially "stood in their way" of pursuing their agenda, Congress, the press,and many Military and World leaders! These are truly scary and dangerous times we live in.
Posted by emal at May 21, 2006 01:44 PMIf this actually takes place, and the feces hit the spinning blades of the fan, this might all that will be needed to bring our nation crashing down onto its belly...
Our country is not in good shape right now...BushCo and friends are just printing money left and right right now...
Bush and his buds don't appreciate "reality"...they make their own by saying what the reality is....even if it flies in the face of actuality....I guess if they are all brought up on treason charges, found guilty, and then condemned to death, they will still be probably as they ascend the gallows denying that anything negative is happening...
Posted by YourWorstNightmare at May 21, 2006 01:53 PMChina paid good money for Iranian oil. There not going to let anybody stop that.
Posted by Daryl at May 21, 2006 02:00 PMBushCo and friends are just printing money left and right right now.
i don't see ze problem
Posted by weimar republic at May 21, 2006 02:17 PMThis regime really is an evil crowd and ought to be removed from office. Bush and his like are not fit to govern if they continue on this course.
Posted by at May 21, 2006 02:24 PMI truly believe Bushco is well beyond the political worries about the timing of this strike/ attack on Iran. It's all about advancing their PNAC agenda.
emal is dead on. It's all about PNAC.
These bastards put their whole agenda on the internet for everyone to read about. They knew next to nobody would read it, and that those who did, would be branded as tin-foil-hat-wearing loons.
PNAC is their playbook and they couldn't care less about all the politics going on around them. They'll just do what they want.
Read the site, and their papers. Everything they've done from the word 'go' is in there: Withdraw from non-proliferation treaties, say no to the international court, withdraw from environmental treaties, increase defense spending into Reagan-era deficits, call North Korea, Iran and Iraq the axis of evil, attack Iraq and build an embassy and base there from where to launch future attacks, attack Iran and Syria and continue the process.
People say, ya think we'll really attack Iran? REALLY? Good grief, of course I do. They told us they would.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at May 21, 2006 02:27 PMThanks, Steve, for bringing this up. They may be catapulting the propaganda for Iraq Debacle Part Deux, but I don't think the public's buying. I think emal's right, though. They don't have time or inclination at this point, to bring the public on board with the PNAC plan. They have until November to get the ball rolling and hope for the best in the elections. Bush is a dog with a bone, he's the decider, and he's decided to attack Iran. The only thing undecided at this point is what Republican will stand up and stop him before he plunges the world in chaos. I'm doubting any will.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 21, 2006 02:32 PMTime to let the Meyer Lansky/Micky Cohen wing and their Saudi friends fight their own fucking battles.
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 02:36 PMThe Dems have asked for a NIE on Iran. I think they learned something from the run-up to Iraq and how to analyze any offering from the Bush Admin. it shows some practical concern pon their part. An attack after the midterms would also provide a rationale for reviving censure/impeachment talk.
The financial consequences of this could be catastrophic. I wonder if the financial community is as aware of this as they should be, or maybe they think they are adequately hedged?
I also can't believe that Israelis think they are going to survive such an exchange with a liveable country. Iran ain't Iraq, and they have a lot more friends. Good thing oil and gold dropped in price last week.
Posted by Mimikatz at May 21, 2006 02:55 PMWhat about the China factor?
If General Shrub invades Iran, or even worse, nukes Tehran, don't you think Beijing will go ape-shit?
After all, Iran supplies China with a ton of their oil and they're not going to sit on their hand and let anything -- even a paper cowboy like George "AWOL" Bush, disrupt their economy.
Posted by Christopher at May 21, 2006 04:11 PMAn attack on Iran that isn't authorized by either a UN Security Council resolution or a resolution from Congress (that is, BushCo saying that the Iraq Congressional resolution already gives them authority) would be an outright kick in the ass of Congress by BushCo. Is BushCo ready to be that contemptuous of the Constitution and Congress?
BushCo is crazy enough to try it, IMO. I'm wondering if the Pentagon generals would pose a barrier to an Iran attack. The have to obey a lawful order from Rummy/Bush, but would this order be lawful in their minds?
My guess is that the probability of attack is more than 50/50, but not at the 80%+ that Gardiner suggests.
Last time in Iraq, we heard lots more from the world media on troop, navy, and supplies movement in advance of the war. Two carrier groups are not enough to do more than threaten. If it were 4-6 groups I would be very very scared.
The big risks at to our forces in Iraq (direct attacks on the green zone?) and to oil supplies through the Straits of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf and the Indian ocean. Gold prices and oil prices are not signaling an attack that is imminent.
I agree with JimPortland.
Bush is a lunatic and capable of anything.
The thought of his patrician finger hovering over the nuclear button makes me fear for the lives of innocent citizens everywhere.
I keep thinking, maybe the military is keeping a watchful eye on him, ready to step-in and stop him if he tries something like nuking Tehran
Posted by Christopher at May 21, 2006 04:30 PMThe lower Bu$hCo goes in the polls, the higher the danger of a before-election strike. It's that simple, because making war is the only option he's got to pump up the numbers before the election. Bu$hCo has to get within striking distance of the Diebold fudge factor. If they steal 20% of the votes, even the MSM will notice.
Posted by quixote at May 21, 2006 04:46 PMThe big risks at to our forces in Iraq
Lame-ass editorial in WaPo Today. Subtitled "Tehran Could Retaliate Against Washington by Striking Next Door" then goes on about how Iran would temper their retaliation for the sake of stability in the new shi'ia-dominated iraq. wait, they're crazy killers trying to take us down, but if we bomb them, they'll leave us alone. let me guess, feith's idea?
Posted by benjoya at May 21, 2006 05:42 PMWould Iran become an "outlaw regime" if, shortly after aquiring nuclear weapons and the means of delivering these weapons (long range missles), they (Iran) conducted a nuclear attack against Israel? Or against coalition forces in Iraq. Or a nuclear weapon smuggled into the US.
It is not inconceivable that this will come to pass if they (Iran) are allowed to go forward with their weapons initiatives: the President of Iran has declared (something to the effect) that Israel must be destroyed.
Just asking....how should a "outlaw regime" be defined?
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 05:55 PMrn hs bn t wr wth th S snc Jmmy Crtr's fld dmnstrtn. Thy prptrtd n ct f wr n r svrgn mbssy, mss mrdrd r Mrns n Lbnn, ngndrd th mdrn xprssn f mltnt slm s wpn f xtrtng th cvlzd wrld, nd r cmplct wth th myhm mrdr f prsnnl n rq. Th strch syndrm wshs t s n prtnt n thr jhd t nclr pclyps, prfrrng nhlsm t srvvl.
[Editor: ignore=off]"... preferring nihilsm to survival."
Quite right.
And the Left wishes the rest of us preferred the same thing.
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 06:05 PMJust asking....how should a "outlaw regime" be defined?
So why are you so pleased with North Korea? Your chimporer blows kim jog il. So why don't you mind?
The ostrich syndrome wishes to see no portent in their jihad to nuclear apocalypse, preferring nihilsm to survival.
And you are so fucking stupid you would blow bagley while he blows the chimporer while he blows kim jong il.
Posted by phidipides at May 21, 2006 06:27 PMAccording to scout, there's some mystical message in Bindetto's gibberish. I'm sure he'll be along momentarily to translate for us...unfortunately. They're prophets, you know.
I'll bite, teabagger. An outlaw regime would lie its country in a war to take control of a sovereign nation's resources. Hmmm. An outlaw regime would spread false stories about another country's supposed new law requiring ethnic groups to wear badges or possession of enriched unranium. Interesting. An outlaw regime would probably threaten nuclear strikes on another country over unsubstantiated assumptions about readiness to lob nukes around the world.
Is this sounding like anyone you know, 'bagman?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 21, 2006 06:40 PM"So why are you so pleased with North Korea?"
Ummmmm. Where do you get that idea: the North Korean leadership is an evil regime and needs to be destroyed. However, they -- the North Koreans -- have nuclear weapons. This makes the task of riddig the Earth of their evilness difficult. (Would you care to have the same difficulties with Iran?) Additionally, North Korea has missles capable of striking Japan and an array of artillery within range of Seoul -- the capital of South Korea, a country in Asia.
And, by-the-way, was it not M. Albright -- a patron Saint for the Left -- that visited North korea and, in concert with President Clinton, declared (something to the effect that everything was "OK." An incovenient piece of history, but none-the-less, true.
"And you are so fucking stupid you would blow bagley while he blows the chimporer while he blows kim jong il."
And, phidipides, you do not only excel at displaying your ignorance, but your rudness as well.
Anything else?
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 06:43 PMPlease forgive my rude behavior.
I HATE THESE FUCKERS !!
Alison, can you be more specific? Bushco? 'Bagman? Both? That's not rudeness, it's sanity.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 21, 2006 06:48 PM"I'll bite, teabagger. An outlaw regime would lie its country in a war to take control of a sovereign nation's resources."
Seems to me that we have not taken control of Iraq's resources. Their oil output -- the only thing they really have is, on average, below pre-war levels.
An outlaw regime would spread false stories about another country's supposed new law requiring ethnic groups to wear badges...."
A story originally reported by a Canadian news outlet: Canada is an "outlaw regime?" Who knew? (And a story denied by Administration spokespersons.)
An outlaw regime would probably threaten nuclear strikes on another country over unsubstantiated assumptions about readiness to lob nukes around the world."
Then I suppose that the President of Iran, who has repeatedly promised to "wipe Israel off the map," is an outlaw regime.
Thanks for clearing that up, iamcoyote. I can always count on you for an accurate representation of the Leftist position: however inane it may be.
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 06:51 PM(deleted by host)
Bagley, go somewhere else to use up bandwidth
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 06:53 PMTh rrtnlty n th lft s stggrng, t ssm th bst f ntntns frm th Dth t mrc rgm, whl ssmng th wrst frm thr fllw mrcns. Gtt wndr hw mny cmptnt psychlgsts xhbt nfntl nd rrtnl bhvr whn thr llsns r chllngd by ncnvnnt fcts.
[Editor: ignore=off]bn, psychlgy s rgnzd cmmn sns. nd cmmn sns gs th sm drctn th wnd blws, dpndng pn hw dp t s n th pt f hstry whn y msr t's prvrsn. Ths, s scntsm gs, th prvrsn f th scl cnstrctn f cmmn sns twst vry fct nt dcy. B dvsd tht ths frml s th sm fr bth wngs, ll lyrs, nd thrght hstry. ls, th clsr y gt t th prsnt, th dpr n th pt w g.
[Editor: ignore=off]"(deleted by host)
Bagley, go somewhere else to use up bandwidth"
Interesting post -- was not by me, but it does seem that one of the moderators has some sense of decorum.
Who is the coward that posted this deleted comment? Rhetorical question...after all, the person is a coward.
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 07:18 PMBendito, you are the last guy in the world to question someone else's sanity.
Bagley, Iran will be an outlaw regime if and when they go nuclear, and if they are in clear violation of the NPT. We are not there yet, no matter what the Mossad or Bush say. And if you are so concerned with outlaw regimes, then you must oppose Bush doing business with both Pakistan and India, correct?
If Bush launches an attack on Iran without a UN resolution in support of it, and without an act of war from Congress, he is an international outlaw, subject to prosecution at The Hague, and yes, subject to impeachment.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 21, 2006 07:19 PMThat coward is me, Bagley. Be gone.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 21, 2006 07:20 PMBen - Expediting the overthrow of Irans democratically elected president in the early fifties wasnt the hostile act of an "enemy"? Can the talk radio, its-all-THE LIBERAL-Jimmy Carters-fault. Thats a pathetically - and probobly intentionally - ahistorical analysis and in itself symtomatic of why policy in the M.E has been a dabacle of uintended consequences for so long. People like you dont want to know, dont want to understand, dont really want to act intelligently - not if it means giving up Manifest Destiny for a New American Century and your little power-over fantasies.
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 07:33 PM"Wipe Israel off the map." Im sure most of the world would settle for wiping all chickensh*t hawk warmongers off the map.
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 07:38 PM"That coward is me, Bagley. Be gone."
Steve, you see need to mask your identity and pretend to be me. Interesting.
But to your post:
"Bagley, Iran will be an outlaw regime if and when they go nuclear..."
The leadership of Iran has stipulated that Israel should be destroyed. Indications of weapons-grade nuclear material has been found at Iranian nuclear sites. They are actively pursuing long-range delivery system. This Iran? The one that publically calls for the destruction of Israel?
Why, Steve, I did not know you had such a visceral hatred for Jews.
"... must oppose Bush doing business with both Pakistan and India, correct?"
Pakistan, yes. India, no.
"... a UN resolution in support of it..."
The UN? That would be the organization headed by Kofi A., right? The one involved in oil for fod, sex slavery in the Sundan and other places. The one that passed (what was it) 17 resolutions condemning Iraq prior to the most recent war. The one that reacted so swiftly to the tsunami at the end of last year. The same organization that regularly condemns Israel, the only functional democracy in the mid-east. The one where Libiya chairs (chaired?) the Human Rights commision? And on...andon...and on....
Steve, is that really you?
jondee,
How about an original thought. Try it, you might like it....but more likey it will give you a headache.
He cowers behind a desk and a computer all the while pushing twentie-year-olds between himself and the line-of-fire and he calls other people cowards. ILMAO.
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 07:46 PMWhy would people like Bagley support an idiot like Jr. bombing Iran? Of couse, failure is a goal for these people. They want America to fall into a fascist state where Jr. is the dictator ( or the decider, LOL)
No one with a shred of sanity would want these idots to manage one more thing. The people who couldn't even manage a hurricane are supposed to have a major war? LOL.
Well, Jr. has been good for the comedians. Conservatism has been good for a lot of laughs!
Posted by Ga6thDem at May 21, 2006 07:49 PMBagley - For you that would have been preeminently "original". I've never once seen you or Ben-Hur mention those little inconvenient bits of history; the coup in the fifties and the years of proping up the Shah. But, who needs history? You guys have a decider and Jeee-zus!
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 07:54 PM'He cowers behind a desk and a computer all the while pushing twentie-year-olds between himself and the line-of-fire and he calls other people cowards. ILMAO."
Huh? Try to be at least a little bit coherent.
(When did you serve in the military?)
"Why would people like Bagley support an idiot like Jr. bombing Iran?"
Actually, I will support anyone who endeavors to eliminate the Iranian threat.
"...a fascist state..."
Why are Leftists so ignorant and un-educated....oops, my bad, that is what makes them Leftists.
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 08:02 PM"Bagley - For you that would have been preeminently "original". I've never once seen you or Ben-Hur mention those little inconvenient bits of history; the coup in the fifties and the years of proping up the Shah."
Ok, it happened. I do know my history. So what. Remember the cold war. There was a reason for these things that we (the US) did. What is your point?
Be brief. Be concise. It is late and I must go to work in the morning to continue providing the tax dollars that you lefties are so in love with: after all, you depend on them!
Posted by Bagley at May 21, 2006 08:08 PMBe brief. Be concise. It is late and I must go to work in the morning to continue providing the tax dollars that you lefties are so in love with: after all, you depend on them!
Me thinks georgie porgie and Crummy get more for their DoD!
But if he did decide to take care of Americans that would be a welcome relief!
"Iran has been at war with the US since Jimmy Carter's failed administration." - Bendito
Wrong again.
Iran has been "at war" with the USA, since the USA toppled a democratically elected Iranian president back in the 1950's and re-installed the much hated, but pro-American, Shah, against the wishes of the majority of Iranians.
Another generation of horror was brought to bare upon the Iranian people by the Shah and his secret police.
When will the USA stop its adventurism into the internal political policies of other nations?
It always comes back to bite us in the ass.
Posted by Christopher at May 21, 2006 08:42 PMBagley - "Incoherent". Apparently you got it. Which means it must've been really, really coherent. Now try this one on. A militantly aggressive foreign policy based on relatively short-term self interest - that does things like overthrow democratically elected leaders and install brutal dictators - engenders as many "threats" as it eliminates. Of course that'll never bother a chickenshit hawk like you as long as someone elses kid is doing the dirty work for you. Punks like you "depend on them."
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 09:27 PMMan, Bagley so having a conservative idiot who is likely to lose is worth bombing Iran?
That is just classic! LOL!
Posted by Ga6thDem at May 22, 2006 04:53 AMWhere do you get that idea: the North Korean leadership is an evil regime and needs to be destroyed. However, they -- the North Koreans -- have nuclear weapons. This makes the task of riddig the Earth of their evilness difficult. (Would you care to have the same difficulties with Iran?)
We thought Iraq had WMDs. We went after Hussein's regime. What the BFD?
Posted by ann at May 22, 2006 05:15 AMAnd why would Iran use nuclear weapons to try and liberate the holy land from the Israelis?
Posted by snark at May 22, 2006 06:31 AMI think that it would be a terrible mistake for us to act in Iran (as I would hope everyone would think) because slowly, bit by bit, the Iranian people are fighting for their freedoms. I know it's not the same thing as complete democracy, and I certainly do not want them to have nucelear weapons, but I think that the majority of the people in Iran do not like the fundamentalists any more than we do and wish they could rule themselves.
I am not convinced, however, that we're going to go to war just yet. I do believe that our sudden granting of a full diplomatic ties with Libya is being done in part to signal to Iran that they too can be treated that way if they're more open with us and give up the nuclear weapons program.
I don't know. Iran with a nuclear weapon scares me. Our president pretending to think that Iran has a nuclear weapons scares me. It all feels like a nightmare.
Posted by Maurice Reeves at May 22, 2006 10:27 AMIf we had been serious about taking the lead in non-proliferation years ago, we wouldnt be worrying about this today. You cant have it both ways. Continuing Manifest Destiny and preventing others from attempting to obtain detterents. And lets face it, Bagbrain and Ben-Hur are Manifest Destiny true believers playing fear-mongering 101. We are the way, the truth, and the light with the purest of motives fighting the war against pure evil in the great geopolitical video game. A bumpersticker masquerading as thought.
Posted by jondee at May 22, 2006 11:35 AM