Iran's President Ahmadinejad also made an interesting statement:
He said Iran only supports Hezbollah politically and morally.
That remark makes me wonder what he knows about potential U.S. and / or Israeli plans for engaging Iran. Keep in mind Israel has already accused Iran of providing longer range missiles to Hezbollah.
read full article here:
Posted by Daniel DiRito at July 26, 2006 03:22 PMLighten up. Troop levels are essentially irrelevant when a decision has already been reached to "employ" nuc-a-lur weaponery.
I know what you're thinking, too, but don't be silly. I don't mean the Big Ones. Just the little, teeny tiny ones. The ones that were ordered when the Bushites took over. Teeny-weeny nuclear bunker busters, that's all.
As Pat Lang will be happy to explain over his blog, the military will carry out their orders, period. So everything's under control.
Are we clear? ARE WE CLEAR?!
Posted by Sonoma at July 26, 2006 03:42 PMI really feel sick to my stomach after reading this.
Posted by Christopher at July 26, 2006 03:44 PMSimultaneously, there's a post over at The Next Hurrah by KagroX which, in discussing the BushCo flipping off the Hamden decision, points out that what all of us have to UNDERSTAND BIG TIME is that these guys aren't backing off. It's very relevant to revisit the I word again and this time put our shoulders into it.
Posted by mainsailset at July 26, 2006 04:05 PMVery slightly off topic, there seems to be a dispute about who did what to start this god-awful war.
Hezbollah say that they kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, and only fired rockets into Israel when the Israelis had started pounding Lebanon.
The Israelis, and the Americans, are telling a different story. They say that Hezbollah not only captured 2 Israeli soldiers, but also started firing rockets into Israel. And it was in response to this that Israel hit back at Lebanon in self-defence.
This is a crucial difference, and the media are running the Israeli story. But my recollection is much nearer that of Hezbollah's account.
Searching the news to answer my own question, it seems like Hezbollah captured 2 Israeli soldiers, and the Israeli bombing came within hours, according to ">Boston Globe 13 July 2006. There is no mention of Hezbollah rockets at all in this 3 page article, which begins:
A deadly cross-border attack by Hezbollah gunmen into northern Israel yesterday opened a second front in Israel's battle with Islamic extremists, just two weeks after Hamas fighters crossed into southern Israel and kidnapped a soldier.
The gunmen attacked an army patrol, killing three Israeli soldiers and abducting two more. In response, Israeli troops stormed into southern Lebanon and bombed bridges in operations that left five more Israeli soldiers dead.
Israeli troops plunged deep into Lebanese territory for the first time since Israel ended its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000. Today, Israeli jets struck runways at Beirut International Airport, forcing its closure and the diversion of flights...
It continues later:
In the carefully coordinated attack yesterday, Hezbollah fighters hit an Israeli border patrol of two Humvees with heavy gunfire, antitank fire, and an explosive planted in the road. Three soldiers died, several others were badly wounded, and two were captured.
As Israeli forces moved into Lebanon hours later, an Israeli tank was blown up by a mine, killing four soldiers; a fifth was killed when he came under fire while trying to rescue them, the military said. Israeli airstrikes hit seven Hezbollah bases inside Lebanon as well as roads and five bridges.
Israel continued its air and sea assault today. Israeli Army Radio reported that the object of the attack on the airport was to shut down air traffic in and out of the Lebanese capital.
All of which means that Israel and the US are trying to rewrite history to make it seem like Hezbollah fired its rockets first, rather than Israel first launching its bombs on Beirut.
Posted by idlex at July 26, 2006 04:10 PMScrewed up there somewhere. The Boston Globe article is at
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/13/hezbollah_attack_puts_israel_on_a_second_front/
Or maybe here!
I had read all 3 stories separately, so it's nice to see how they are all tied together in one place. Plus makes perfect sense as to what might have motivated Israel to deliberately hit that UN outpost in Lebanon after several attempts to get them to stop. Did they do it to frighten off not only any idea of the UN, but was it also to keep any idea of any Nato or international force out of the region and therefore only US troops would be placed there? (Although I still have no idea where they will get these troops from). I know I may be getting into far reaching areas of speculation, but if I have learned anything over the past 5+ years (has it only been 5+ years..seems like a lifetime), I can't trust this cabal running the country. One thing is for certain is that Cheney and Rummy are still calling all the shots and that is all anyone needs to remember!
Posted by emal at July 26, 2006 04:14 PMHitler is to Stalingrad as Cheney is to ...
Lebanon?
Posted by clarify at July 26, 2006 04:38 PMScott Ritter and Ray McGovern spoke recently in Santa Cruz, CA. I couldn't make it but watched the replay last night on the local cable access channel.
Scott Ritter was asked why the war in Iraq was started. I'll try and paraphrase his answer - Iraq was never about oil or WMD. It was the first step in the pnac's plan for empire building and global domination and Lebanon is the next step. Serial war is the only way in which a small minority of radicals can retain power. He said that it was up to us - the American people - to take back the America we all remember.
Ritter was very intense and about to crawl over the lecturn. McGovern's delivery was more understated, but he had command of the facts (as did Ritter) and documentary evidence.
IMO, we're in the middle of our generation's Cuban Missle Crisis. But this time, we're going toe-to-toe with a domestic enemy.
Posted by Jim Faith at July 26, 2006 04:49 PMThe M$M hasn't figured out that Lebanon is a proxy war for the US and Iran. They cover Lebanon for the sake of the guns, the smoke and the high rateings that they generate.
They would find plenty of guns and smoke in Iraq, but a three year old quagmire, even one with 140,000 US troops in harm's way, isn't "sexy" enough.
Net nutrality must be protected. If it weren't for the blogs, our media would be a total disgrace.
Posted by herbal tee at July 26, 2006 04:51 PM
Herbal Tee, I admire your insight. You are a smart Tee. Do you like Long Island Tea?
Posted by Mal Feasance at July 26, 2006 06:11 PMI really, honestly thought that I had grasped fully the extent of this administration's madness. But I was actually taken aback reading the Rolling Stone article. It's amazing: there's not a single person in the administration—at least, nobody with pull—who doesn't want to expand the war to Iran.
Posted by dj moonbat at July 26, 2006 06:31 PMHitler is to Stalingrad as Cheney is to ...
El Diablo.
Posted by Christopher at July 26, 2006 07:03 PMdn't knw hw y'll mssd t, bt rn lrdy dclrd wr n th S nd srl. Dnl s qt th fld strtgy.
[Editor: ignore=off]Well Bendito, then go enlist and fight for your leader in Tehran.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 26, 2006 08:47 PMI get the idea that Bush is not quite in the loop as to the machinations between Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice. These guys are very adept at power plays and I dont think George gets it. Rice is going to pay the price if Bush gets the wool pulled over his eyes....
Posted by Parallax at July 26, 2006 09:09 PMI don't know how y'all missed it, but Iran already declared war on the US and Israel. Denial is quite the failed strategy.
Well then surely you've heard of links!
Posted by herbal tee at July 26, 2006 09:32 PMIf Cheney and Rumsfeld somehow manage to hang on and pull off this crap and get us into a third war, expect several things:
a) A military draft. There's no way Bush will be able to handle three wars with the military he's got, particularly if the third war becomes regional. Yes, it would take a year to bring new troops up to speed.
b) Fully expect the loss of more coalition partners. This will increase the pressure for a draft. It will also increase the pressure to use nuclear weapons as a way to avoid a draft.
c) Oil at least $100/barrel. Gasoline at $5/gal.
d) A severe recession as the bill comes due for all this nonsense.
e) The continuing failure of Bush's foreign policy and the continuing loss of America's position in the world. These guys have no idea what they're doing or what they're unleashing.
f) The winners of such nonsense, if there can be said to be winners, will be Russia and China.
These are the repercussion IF we don't use nuclear weapons. If we use nuclear weapons, expect a tsunami of problems.
Also, there is the complication of a Congress that needs to declare war for such bullshit and the likelihood that it will make itself irrelevant by not being involved.
Condi Rice's diplomacy has been so lackluster and amateurish, I'm surprised there are people so cynical and dishonest as to say, 'we tried diplomacy, it doesn't work.' If we don't try diplomacy, it certainly does not work, and we have not tried it. But they state the obvious when they say Condi is incompetent.
I'm also surprised anyone is still taking Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol and Richard Perle seriously. These clowns have been wrong about so much in the last fifteen years, it's an embarrassment to see them on TV.
But I would take nothing for granted. Here's the issue: the United States does not need a third war. It needs a Congress that will hold Bush accountable until he leaves office. Terrorism is a problem but this has very little to do with terrorism; it's just crazy right wingers on the loose. We need to know the crazy right wingers are not going to dominate a weak and incompetent president. That's the issue of this election. That's the word that needs to get out.
Posted by Craig at July 26, 2006 09:47 PMRe: the Scott Ritter post above. Ritter has been saying that Rummy/Cheney were going to launch an attack against Iran since last year. He originally predicted the attack would be July 2006. The dates seem to have changed, but I've always thought he knew what he was talking about.
Posted by lucky_myr at July 27, 2006 04:50 AMAnd here I was thinking our lady Condi was the bad girl on the block, when in reality, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld (he bought the title 'von'). When will these two jackasses get hauled into court for war crimes? Oh, right, Republicans, so never...
Posted by tempus at July 27, 2006 07:10 AMHerbal Tee, I admire your insight. You are a smart Tee. Do you like Long Island Tea?
Mal,
Sorry it took so long to respond and thanks for the complement. Hopefully you'll look at this thread again and see my response. As to long island iced tea, I had one once and almost ended up in jail that night. That drink just doesn't agree with me, ever again.
Posted by herbal tee at July 30, 2006 08:13 AMAn 'n' was cut off that's "never again" not "ever again."
Posted by herbal tee at July 30, 2006 08:16 AM