The Plenary Powers President. Plenis.
Posted by Via at February 2, 2007 03:00 PMOff topic, but it seems that the guy pushing the law firms as unpatriotic traitors for representing the detainees has finally resigned.
Good bye and good riddence. The more of these un-Americans that resign the better, because the gop bench really isn't very good or competent. Hell, the first string pretty much stinks, the worse they are, the more people can see and long for a change.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 2, 2007 03:26 PMIt would be pretty to think that Christopher Dickey is right, but I don't think W is a good poker player. Has he shown signs of an ability to read other players, or use subtle tactics? Ever? Plus, I think Tehran is playing some kind of three-dimensional chess, so W isn't even playing the right game.
I've also been reading the "we're not planning" statements to mean "we're finished with the planning". I don't think they'd have moved the Stennis if they didn't already have a plan for it.
Posted by biggerbox at February 2, 2007 04:33 PMChickenhawk I and II have painted themselves into the mother of all corners, and are more than capable of an Iran version of shock and aw shit for a much needed diversion.
Duckman: Thanks for the link, think that lawyer is headed for FEMA? I think he has the "right stuff".
Posted by TIKI AL at February 2, 2007 04:34 PMDuckman, I just heard that on Air America. Bad rubbish, indeed.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2007 04:44 PMSome truths....
Iran is in a signatory to the NPT...Israel is not.
Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons deployed. (Recently publicly admitted by Ohmert.)
No one is pressing Israel for international inspections of it's nuclear facilities.
Under this treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for nuclear power generation.
The US also signed the treaty, which means they have agreed to allow enrichment for nuclear fuel.
Thus far, there has been no evidence produced to show that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear device, despite intrusive IEAE inspections.
The often repeated quote that Ahmadenijad said that Israel should be "wiped off the face of the earth" is inaccurate. What he said in quoting Allatolah Khomeni was, literally translated, "The imam said that the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time." Note that he is referring to the regime, not Israel physically. Of course, the endlessly repeated misquote fits better into the "Iran wants another holocaust with nuclear weapons" meme.
There is more evidence that many of the IED's deployed by Sunni's in Iraq are supplied through Jordan and Saudi Arabia than through Iran. Some if these IED's have depleted uranuim tips, indicating western government origin. (See Wayne Madsen Report)
A plan to split Iraq into three warring factions is put forth in the "Clean Break" strategy formulated within the Israeli government several years ago.
The American architects of the Iraq war are dominated by men with dual Israeli/Amercian citizenship.
AIPAC and JINSA are extremely powerful organizations that have a dominating infuence in American politics and media.
"Rebuilding America's Defences" is a policy paper put forth by The Project for a New American Century in the 1990's. Those who signed onto this paper are many of the same people who are now in positions of governmental power. This paper stated the the militaristic policy changes they wanted would take place very slowly, if at all, barring some catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor.
1 + 1 = 2
"First, Robert Gates says the Bush Administration is not planning for a war with Iran."
Yeah, but they didn't plan for a war against Iraq...that's obvious too.
I think I'll watch the Marx Brothers' movie Horse Feathers now.
Posted by Alex at February 2, 2007 05:42 PMThe only way to get the truth out of the administration is take what they say and flip it a hundred and eighty degrees. Have we gone to Mars yet? Oh no, that was last year's SOTU, or as I like to call it "I wish he'd just STFU"
Posted by Sharon at February 2, 2007 06:02 PMhttp://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=65244&cat=1
moving to the gulf?
Posted by albertchampion at February 2, 2007 06:07 PMIt's almost irrelevant whether Bush is planning to go to war with Iran or not. Effective foreign policy depends on credibililty and without that credibililty, which the Bush Administration doesn't have, just roll the dice.
In some ways, the problem isn't Bush but a right wing chorus urging an attack as a potential way of salvaging Bush's presidency instead of simply admitting what a failure he is. Right wing conservatives don't admit failures—they seek scapegoats and excuses—and it's that behavior that may get us another war we don't need. Democrats need to speak up loud and clear but the rational Republicans still left in Congress need to push even harder against the Republican Party's lunatic fringe.
Posted by Craig at February 2, 2007 06:25 PMwrt: Second, read this interesting piece from Newsweek’s Christopher Dickey, who thinks that both Iran and the Bush Administration are playing poker, but that Iran is simply more experienced at it. Dickey doesn’t think the White House will really attack Iran, and is simply bluffing. Are they?
I remmeber reading somewhere that in international political circles, the folks in DC are playing poker while the folks in Tehran are playing Chess.
So far, I'd have to say I agree. Seems to me Bush and Company are overplaying their hand.
Posted by Rat at February 2, 2007 06:42 PMNt plnnng fr wr wth rn wld b flhrdy dsrgrd f n ntrnsc sttn. Bt cntrry t th pltcl nstgtn frm th dstrbd, prprng fr th vntlty f cnflct s nt th sm s prsng n.
[Editor: ignore=off]Look for something explosive to happen to one of the fifty US warships floating around in the Persian Gulf, followed by a congressional resolution and US retaliation against Iran. The stage is set. It's an historically proven gambit (the Maine, the Arizona and others, the Maddox).
Posted by Don Bacon at February 2, 2007 07:39 PMHello Steve,
When will you "un-ban" me? I have been posting over at iamcoyote's site and it is really a very boring place (other than the rather public display of affection between iamcoyote and tempus).
Thanks!
Bagley
P.S. Come on...I add to your traffic!
Posted by Bagley at February 2, 2007 09:40 PMI can't think of anything these guys have bluffed at.
They've thrown up distractions and chaff (teh gay, Mars, etc), or deployed blizzards of bamboozlement, as in justifying their wars, but never strategically aimed higher than they were willing to settle for.
Posted by dfhippie at February 2, 2007 10:13 PMRemember China and the P-3 incident? A month into his appointment, and China played him like a 6 year old in the World Series of Poker. And wasn't chess invented in, ummm, errr, ohhh, ahhhh, Persia, aka Iran? Or maybe China, or India, but at any rate mastered in the middle east.
Not in Texas or Connecticut.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 2, 2007 11:51 PM"This would be technically true if the administration has already completed planning for a war with Iran."
You understand them very well. All the signs of a naval/air attack on Iran are there. We're watching it in progress. Is it bluffing? I agree with dfhippie above, they don't bluff. Someone has said that if we imagine what might be worse than the worst thing we think they could do, they will do worse than that. They are fully capable of that insanity. They are madmen.
I think the Penatagon has plans in place ---just in case--- for an invasion of any place. It just gives the planners planning practice. For example, as Zinni noted they had a good plan in place to invade Iraq, the smart guys (Wolfie, etc.) just threw it in the trash. It would have required a lot more troops, as Shinseki stated in Congressional testimony. In the case of Iran, it was reported some time ago that W wanted to invade but the generals unanimously vetoed the idea.
Posted by howard hughes blues at February 3, 2007 04:00 AMWhat Gates mean by not "planning" a war is that they aren't going to go to Congress to authorize an attack---it will be an "unplanned" war, set off by a supposedly unforseeable "outrage" against the troops.
Don't forget the unbearable provocation which completetly justified (nay, demanded!) Israel's decision to destroy Lebanon last summer---depredations and abductions against a single Israeli army patrol.
We've already got the suspicious Karbala kidnapping and executions of our troops being "investigated" by our crackerjack military investigators as a possible "Iranian job". (And who's to say otherwise, BTW? Who would be able to deny whatever our military "concludes"?))
So that's the ticket, and that's what Gates means when he says the coming war with Iran will be "unplanned".
Posted by euzoius at February 3, 2007 07:10 AMThe Whitehouse may be playing poker, but the Iranians are playing chess. And they are real good at it.
Rummy always said there was no war plan on his desk. and he was right- there was no planning at all- just do it foreign policy.
Just do it will lose the chess game
Posted by j at February 3, 2007 09:47 AM"Two things for you to chew on this afternoon regarding Iran. First, Robert Gates says the Bush Administration is not planning for a war with Iran. This would be technically true if the administration has already completed planning for a war with Iran. Your thoughts."
Put me in the "they don't plan" group.
And in the "they don't bluff" group.
And in the "they don't learn from history or their mistakes" group.