Breaking News
Obama Pushes For Yes On Health Care Reform In House
Bush administration flunky is now claiming Iran will have a nuke in 16 days. Sort of like how Iraq was supposedly just moments away from launching nuke attacks. Look, I know you guys want badly to win the election this fall, but damn it how many people do you have to kill to keep the Republican majority?
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Nice job, Oliver… Just sum up foreign policy as “wag the dog”.
Are you betting the Democrats have what it takes to stop Iran’s nuclear plans?
If this was electioneering, then they would be saying Iran will have a nuke in 16 months …. unless you re-elect us so we can go kick some ass.
Or is Paul Hacket running for something in the next 96 hours that I don’t know about and needs to be taken down?
When Clinton was using cruise missiles to try to get Osama, that’s precisely how most of the Republican congress and right-wing talk radio summed it up: “Wag the Dog! No War for Monica!”
What do you think it “takes” to “stop Iran’s nuclear plans”, out of curiosity? With guys like Rademaker trying to heat things up and inflame the situation as much as possible, it seems the only thing that the Administration is even remotely interested in with regard to “stopping Iran’s nuclear plans” is yet another systematic campaign of bombing brown people. If, instead, and as all serious arms control and nuclear experts testify, it will be years before Iran is close to being able to have a bomb, do the Republicans have what it takes to build up a serious international dialog with Iran and other countries after years of waving our collective weiners in everyone’s faces?
Considering the administration’s track record, my 7 year old dog, let alone the Democratic Party, should be more trusted with Iran than the GOP.
OW says a Bush admin “flunky” said, “Iran will have a nuke in 16 days”. But that’s not what the Bloomberg article says. The quote is: “Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days.”
If the Iranians had a workable warhead, delivery system, and 50,000 centrifuges, OW’s statement would be true.
“the Democratic Party, should be more trusted with Iran than the GOP.”
That should work out good. Maybe Carter and Brzezinski can begin negotiations again and get some more hostages taken or start another Iran/Iraq war.
What do you think it takes to stop Iran s nuclear plans , out of curiosity?
Israeli intelligence and Israeli military action.
You might start with thinking about the problem, instead of assuming that it doesn’t exist.
And, of course, the senseless characterizations of Bush, Republicans, and conservatives are oh, so helpful.
Oh Boy…let’s watch all the chicken-hawks come out to play now.
How do you stop anyone’s nuclear plans? You can bomb the facilities…but the technology does not just sit in stasis…it exists in the brains of the people that are creating it. There’s a damn good chance those people don’t like Americans.
Knock out one facility, they’ll just build it somewhere else, at some later time.
So, mark my words….04/12/2006….we’re being “readied” for another war. Over the next few months, the Bush adminsitration will try to make it “palatable” for the American people.
We’re going to another country far, far away, where people of course, hate us. We’ll install a phony government, and then leave the country in chaos because American political will won’t last beyond another season of the Sopranos. In the end, we won’t be any more “safe” from the Iran nuclear threat than we were when we invaded Iran.
I think now is the appropriate time to quote our illustrious leader….
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me uh…..uh……you can’t get fooled again.”
JK
Iran Could Have The Bomb In 16 Days
Yikes… April 12 (Bloomberg) — Iran, which is defying United Nations Security Council demands to cease its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of…
There’s no chance a bombing campaign short of nukes would *destroy* Iran’s nuclear program. It would only delay it. The diplomatic route is the only real solution, and the Iranians know it. Too bad the right wing in this country won’t stand for the administration offering any positive inducements for change in Iran’s nuke program. “OMG YOU’RE APPEASING TERRORISM”
Conservatives are the most significant and dangerous obstacle in the way of realistically keeping nukes out of the hands of Teheran.
I think JK pretty well captures the frustration of watching this whole process unfold. We’ll be at war with Iran sometime in the next six to ten months, though most likely after the mid-term election. Nothing anyone can say or do will stop it, least of all the Iranians themselves. Anyone that thinks Bush hasn’t already decided that bombing Iran is the only and inevtiable option hasn’t paid any attention the last five years. No doubt if the Republicans retain control of Congress after November BUsh will seek authorization to bomb Iran. If they lose control he will argue that Congress already gave him the authority to bomb Iran after 9-11.
I hate to say it but I’m back to the point where I say more power to ‘em. Let Bush be Bush and leave the conservatives to wallow in yet another disaster of their own making. If they want to go down in history as the party that turned America into a rogue state, fine. Fuck it.
As I said, “Thinking about the problem…”
“Deterrence” worked for 40 years with the Russians. Why the hurry to bomb Iran?
garth: You assumed that I was defending Bush. I realize that the liberal commenters on this blog are in constant “attack Bush mode,” but that doesn’t mean that conservatives are in constant “defend Bush” mode.
I said, “You might start with thinking about the problem.”
Quaker, deterrence worked because the Soviet Union was attempting to build and maintain an empire, by stealing resources from its sattelites. We could capitalize on their economic weakness, as well the inherent unwillingness of any people to live under the heel of another.
Neither of those situations obtain in Iran. What would our leverage be?
The russians didn’t believe nuking israel would get them into heaven for one…..
It will be another case of Wag the Camel. As the election draws closer, the drum beat for war will increase to a fever pitch with the right wing noise machine and Bush attacking Democrats.
That is what happens when there are no adults in the government.
In fact, under its treaties, Iran has the right to have nuclear power and under current economic conditions, it has the need because they can earn foreign exchange selling their oil rather than using it themselves.
One would hope that at some point in history, the United States would realize that tying its security to Israel is actually detrimental to world peace and American welfare.
Frank: you’re using that link to defend Bush? Wow.
The problem is that Bush’s contant and god-awful mangling of international diplomacy has gotten us exactly where we are. He needs to be removed and some sort of adult put in charge who can maybe listen to real-world advice and come up with a solution, instead of just pointing a gun at Iran and saying “Cuz we said so!”. I find your “thinking about the problem” stance a little disingenuous. instead of just DOING THAT, you’re trolling. You are the problem.
Interesting link, Frank. Did you read all of it before you posted it?
The Bush administration has demonstrated, in too many ways, that it’s better at starting fights than finishing them. It shouldn’t make that same mistake again. Threats of war will be more convincing if they come slowly and reluctantly, when it has become clear that truly there is no other choice.
“Are you betting the Democrats have what it takes to stop Iran s nuclear plans?”
The democrats have as much as the republicans and it consists of mostly hot air!
The current administration is more interested in trying to score political points than sit down with them and try to work this out. To do so would take both credibility and courage and that’s something they are sorely lacking. Furthermore, regardless of what democrats are capable of, they are not the ones in charge (for now). That’s something the republicans seem to want everyone to forget.
And while we’re at it, why not start another arms race?
Good point Java!
I mean hell, do you know how many american “boys” were killed in WWII? Just cause those damn Nazi’s were killing joos by the million….?
Freaking waste of americas best eh Java?
Shalom and happy Passover you f’ing anti-semite….
The Bush administration is the worst threat to nuclear non-proliferation in the world.
Why Iran is hardly an immediate threat (lifted in its entirety from Liberal Oasis):
1. Israel is not actually worried about being attacked by Iranian nukes. They re worried about losing influence.
Trita Parsi, Middle East specialist and former advisor to GOP Rep. Bob Ney, recently wrote in Lebanon s Daily Star:
Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational (but extremist), calculating and risk-averse.
Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability…
…an Iran that does not have nuclear weapons – but that can build them – will significantly damage Israel’s ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations.
It will damage the image of Israel as the sole nuclear-armed state in the region and undercut the myth of its invincibility.
Gone would be the days when Israel’s military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans.
2. In addition to increasing its regional influence, Iran has another “rational” reason why pursuing nukes is in its narrow self-interest: protection from US attack.
Iran is pretty much surrounded by US military bases, and we just knocked off the government next door in Iraq.
Of course, we didn t attack another member of the Axis of Evil: North Korea.
They already had nukes. Iraq didn t. Iran can do the math.
3. Even though it is highly doubtful Iran would launch a nuclear war, a nuclear Iran would weaken the United Nations ability to block the spread of nuclear weapons.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace s Joseph Cirincione told Salon:
The danger is that if Iran is not stopped, the entire nonproliferation regime will be weakened, and with it, the U.N. system …
…if Iran proceeds with its program, and if the U.N. Security Council does not take action that effectively stops Iran, then regionally, other countries are going to start weighing their nuclear options.
Iran’s neighbors are going to have to assume — no matter what Iran says — that Iran is pursuing this technology for the purpose of making weapons.
They are going to feel pressure to try and match those programs.
The second thing that happens is that the perception will spread that the treaties and arrangements that we’ve erected over the last 50 years have failed completely, and the regional crisis in the Gulf will ripple out to the rest of the world.
Other countries that have a technical ability to make nuclear weapons may consider whether they want to do it as well.
4. However, Iran is far away from actually getting a nuke, so there is time for diplomacy to work.
More Cirincione, this from The Nelson Report via The Washington Note:
The country is five to ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs.
Even that estimate … assumes Iran goes full-speed ahead and does not encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague such programs.
In the next few months, they will be lucky to get a test centrifuge cascade up and running. Hardly a point of no return.
5. A military strike aimed at taking out Iranian facilities would likely backfire, as a similar one on Iraq backfired in 81.
Still more Cirincione:
…the strike would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up.
That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981.
Israel knocked the Osirik reactor, but Saddam went underground, expanding from 500 to 7000 workers on a more ambitious program that escaped detection until 1991.
By then he was closer to producing a bomb than he ever would have been with Osirik. It went from a side project to an obsession.
6. Iran has already shown a willingness to deal. Bush has shown he has no interest.
This is according to a former Bush aide in his National Security Council, Flynt Leverett.
He wrote in the NY Times:
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan.
But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an “axis of evil,” thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.
In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences.
The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations.
It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran’s power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case.
Unfortunately, the administration’s response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.
How successful were the European countries at negotiating with Iran ?
Seeing as how the leader of Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and currently continues their quest for nuclear capabilities right in front of the eyes of the entire planet, maybe we ought to pay attention to what they are saying.
By the way Oliver, excellent job of taking a quote, and turning it into something completely unlike what the speaker actually said. Well done. I am sure your pals at mediamatters are proud of you.
Meet drpedro: right-wing blowhard, certified idiot. Since when does criticizing Israeli policy, and U.S. attachments to that policy, equal ‘anti-Semitism’ (never mind that most Palestinians are Semites, while many Israelis are actually of European descent)? By the way, pedro, you’re obviously not a doctor of history; the U.S. didn’t go to war with Germany on behalf of the Jews, you fracking moron.
JD: are you implying that the Iranian president’s bluster about ‘wiping Israel off the map’ should be taken seriously because of the possibility of Iran maybe having nukes at some point in the future? Perhaps you didn’t get the memo: Israel is bristling with nukes, and a conventional military that puts Iran’s to shame. The only ones who’ve proven their willingness to wipe anyone off the map– eliminationist rhetoric or no– are the Israelis with respect to the Palestinians.
Javajoe is right: the biggest threats to peace in the Middle East right now are Israel and the U.S. Put that in your stupid pipe and smoke it, you ignorant wingnuts.
Hold on. I thought the right wing line was that the “Islamofacists” want to take over the world. How can they do that if they provoke a nuclear war?
Let me see if I understand your current fantasy: We have to blow up Iran first, because if we don’t, Iran’s leaders might blow up Israel, damn the consequences. Even if they know they’ll suffer massive retaliation, they’re willing to sacrifice their own power and the lives of their citizens just to kill Jews.
Is that what you’re hallucinating?
You gotta love Frank — I think he is serious here:
“Are you betting the Democrats have what it takes to stop Iran s nuclear plans?”
Frank, can we please just duplicate that GOP masterpiece of planning now on display in Iraq? I’m really looking forward to a sequel in Iran.
Jd, Iran isn’t interested in Europe, they are interested in the U.S. and it’s foreign policy plans. Do you think they are totally blind to how Iraq played out, or that North Korea gets to go merrily along on its way, with nary a peep from the U.S. lately?
People need to get a grip and stop tripping on the notion that the second Iran gets a nuke they are going to fire it at Israel. Besides leaving them with no remaining nuclear deterrent (it’s not like they are going to suddenly amasse a huge arsenal of the things), it would bring complete annihilation down on them. Israel has nukes, India has nukes, and we have nukes of nearly every shape and size. Would a single hit on an Israeli target be worth risking that?
Oliver didn’t twist anything. No self respecting journalist writes a bit about a purportedly hostile, terrorist supporting nation accumulating enough uranium to build a bomb without realizing that they are, in fact, implying rather strongly that Iran will have a nuke in 16 days.
You see, you bring up uranium and people automatically think “nuke,” as in “has them and will attack the U.S. with them.” It’s a fun Cold War reflex that I seem to recall getting a lot of play about three years ago.
buma: I already realize that the crap flow meter is on high for this thread. So I’m not jumping in. No one is thinking, yet.
As to my question, you didn’t answer it (so what’s new?)
strong work alex…..you have regressed the leftist agenda right back to the pre WWII anti-semitism….thanks for clarifying the position…
Who said anything about anti-semitism, Pedro. You did. You took the seemingly innocuous statement to the effect, “maybe we should distance ourselves from Israel a little bit.” and turn it into ” You’re a fucking Nazi jew-hating anti-semite!!!”
You shouldn’t use a ruler to connect the dots, you don’t get to see the picture that way.
“One would hope that at some point in history, the United States would realize that tying its security to Israel is actually detrimental to world peace and American welfare.”
and
“Javajoe is right: the biggest threats to peace in the Middle East right now are Israel and the U.S.”
If these are innocuous statements, then I am a democrat….
It’s funny, but the leftists tolerate statements about Israel that wouldn’t tolerate if you were referring to their pet hamster. But I am the one with a problem! Same guys who thought the Holocaust was a “little misunderstanding….”
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Quite.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that a hamster is a threat to peace in the Middle East. Saying the same about Israel is arguable. You, however, have not argued the point, you’ve only distorted it.
And you haven’t addressed it at all…..
Thanks for playing
Addressed what, Pedro? You’re point, near as I can figure, is that if anyone dares to question US-Israeli policy and collaboration, they are a Nazi and an Anti-semite.
You are doing exactly what you accuse liberals of doing. If you believe A, then you must believe C.
You have not argued the point because I don’t believe you have a point to argue.
Hunh?
Peed’, first you claim that calling Israel a threat to peace is akin to being a holocaust denier, then you wonder why nobody will take up the debate?
Seems self-evident, doesn’t it?
Let me help you: it’s because you’re raving like a crazy person. It’s like trying to argue with someone who claims that super-intelligent fruit bats control the stock market.
It is absolutely impossible to argue against helping Israel (to the extent we are today) without some wingnut calling you a Nazi or holocaust denier. We need to get our money out of that place (the Middle East) and our troops as well. We need to ditch oil, period and let the chips fall where they may. The next president needs to call for a decrease in fossil fuel usage by 80% in 30 or 40 years and start funding research to get it done. The amount of money saved would be astronomical.
Does anyone have a link to an article that has Ahmadinejad’s remarks about wiping Israel off the map that actual has context and what else he mentions? I’m just curious what other ramblings he placed around it. All I can find is the one quote…
Frank D: Seriously though, I am always suspicious of one single line of text. It is why you all constantly get on Oliver’s case, but, of course, he links to the article in question. I have not been able to find the interview or the speech the guy gave. I just want to see why it came up in the first place.
I think Islamic extremists pump their chests just as much as the next guy, except, in this case, they don’t have any bargaining chips (like, say, North Korea). We pump our chests all the time, have for quite some time now, but since we’ve got most of the chips now it’s no big deal, at least, not to us.
I found it, miked…
He said, “There was a stain on the map of Israel on my map of the Middle East, and we must wipe the stain of Israel off the map.”
See? He’s just misunderstood. You know as well as I do, that Islamic extremists mean Israel no harm. It’s Bush they hate.
He didn’t really say that, Mike. I was just kidding.
Here’s what he really said: [From aljazeera.net]
Better?
You should know by know that even though there’s a river of extreme anti – Israeli rhetoric flowing out of many Islamic countries, they aren’t kidding about one thing — they want Israel gone
Note the dates:
May 15, 1948
April 3, 1949
Oct. 29, 1956
May, 1964
May, 1967
June 5-10,1967
Oct. 6, 1973
“is that if anyone dares to question US-Israeli policy and collaboration, they are a Nazi and an Anti-semite.”
“t is absolutely impossible to argue against helping Israel (to the extent we are today) without some wingnut calling you a Nazi or holocaust denier. We need to get our money out of that place”
And here is another quote….
Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation.
Sound like a familiar argument leftists out there….guess who said it, when and in what context….
On the other hand
Pedro, what the hell are you talking about? Lindbergh thought Jews in the US should have opposed the war because they would feel it’s effects first?
For the love of everything Holy, what is your point?
it is the lay-about, limosine liberal leftists who are willing to watch another attempt at a final solution
That takes the proverbial cake.
In Pedroville, liberal=nazi
Yell at me all you want for calling names, I don’t care.
You’re a fucking asshat.
Duros if we had entered the war sooner, we could have saved Jews in europe. Anti-semites didn’t mind waiting, you know, why kill good american boys over a few “joos”. Sounds like a pretty common argument over here at OW’s for todays Iran situation too.
Simple enough for you?
It has got to hurt to have to come begging to an “asshat” to explain these simple concepts. Really….
In frankville, Liberalism – “true” liberals = anti – semitism
And I certainly ain’t begging.
But I digress.
Instead of allowing you to hijack the issue (again), let’s recap; some guy who calls himself java joe made a statment that One would hope that at some point in history, the United States would realize that tying its security to Israel is actually detrimental to world peace and American welfare.
and you countered by calling him an anti-semite.
I don’t think that was what was said, but that seems to be your perception.
Then you went ahead and called all liberals anti-semitic. I don’t think you can prove that it was only liberal jew-hating democrats who wanted to keep us out of WW2, and I further don’t think you can prove that, if they did want to stay out of the war, it was because they didn’t like jewish people.
As I remember, the Pope didn’t exactly step up either, did he?
I didn’t ask you for an explanation, asshole.