The Iran snowjob tour, with the help of a complicit press once again, marches on.
The administration finally unveiled its case this weekend, first in coordinated and anonymous leaks to a trusting New York Times reporter, then in an extraordinarily secretive military briefing at which no one would speak on the record, journalists weren’t allowed to photograph the so-called evidence, and nothing even remotely like proof of direct Iranian government involvement was presented.
It’s just more lead up to sending more Americans off to die in order to help shore up the Republican party.
Ollie you remain confused. The best thing for the republican party would be to just pull up stakes and retreat. That would immediately remove the one thing that the democrats have to delineate themselves from republicans.
But unfortunately, the president is running a country, not a political party. So instead of doing what is right for the republican party, he is going to do what is right for the country and if that means exposing the Iranians, I sure as hell hope he will do it.
the president is running a country, not a political party.
He’s not doing either particularly well.
And they are gonna have to do way better than that.
Why would the Iranians support an insurgency against a GOVERNMENT THAT SUPPORTS THEM?
Why does Pedro actually welcome World War Three?
But unfortunately, the president is running a country, not a political party.
That is unfortunate.
But help me out on this one, Peed’: if he did order a pullout, the remainder of his Republican base would think it was a good idea or a bad idea? His popularity rating would be approximately what?
And last time he got the cable news channels showing their nifty war logos and playing military-sounding music, the result was what again?
Nimrod please back up your assertion that the Iraqi government supports the insurgency…
Quaker it would not matter a bit what the base thought of Bush. It would be great for whomever will run as a republican in the future. They could then claim to be against the pullout when all hell broke loose in Iraq. Sort of like the democrats who all voted for the war resolution and then got all weak in the knees….
Oh and Nimrod, do you think that WWII shouldn’t have been fought? How’s your german? got any jewish relatives. Fighting WWII wasn’t a bad thing in my book, you’re right about that!
It would be great for whomever will run as a republican in the future. They could then claim to be against the pullout when all hell broke loose in Iraq.
Pullout? We’re talking about escalating into Iran here, Peed’. Do keep up.
That would immediately remove the one thing that the democrats have to delineate themselves from republicans.
…except for economic policy, foreign policy, environmental policy, and every other policy, you’re right. Advantage, Pedrosphere!
Oh and Nimrod, do you think that WWII shouldn’t have been fought?
How in the name of all that’s holy do you infer that from his statements?
To quote Tom Servo:
AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHH
Here’s betting that peed knows no one that will actually be doing the fighting, so it’s easy for him to say, “YAY! Kill Brown people!”
I could cry. Learn to read god damn it.
If conservatives like peed had their way in WWII, they would be German teachers.
Your side wanted to throw in with Adolf, remember?
To quote Josh Marshall: 1) Is the volume of arms sales a necessary or suffiicient cause of our predicament in Iraq? and 2) Would successful aggressive action against Iran materially improve our current situation in Iraq?
1) No.
2) It would make things much worse.
That so many GOPers see things differently is evidence of smoke and mirrors in their own mind. Hence: the pre-fooled.
Doing what is right for America would be a first from Bush since he has done nothing but pander to religious and political extremists. Phony reports to justify an illegal war on Iraq are now being mirrored by phony reports to justify an illegal war on Iran. I didn’t believe the Iraq one’s; the Iranian one’s are even sillier.
Germany declared war on the US, Iraq didn’t, und mein Deutsch is nicht gut. It is well known that the Iraq government is Shia and supports Shia militias. Read Juan Cole at http://www.juancole.com/
Oh and Nimrod, do you think that WWII shouldn’t have been fought? How’s your german? got any jewish relatives.
Indeed. Iraq today and Germany in WWII are exactly analagous.
Germany built up a massive war machine, invaded Poland and other countries precipitating the Second World War, instituted the Final Solution, and declared war on the U.S.
Iraq didn’t really do any of that what with massive no fly zones, weekly US bombing raids (and other attacks). But we definitively know now that they very well might have been able to in theory or that they were at least maybe thinking about it. We know that. Definitively.
So it’s really six of one, baker’s dozen of the over with regards to Germany then and Iraq now.
Good call per usual pedromd07. And to answer your next question, no, my Iraqi isn’t very good either. So there, stupid liberals.
When’s that correction coming, Oliver? You think you can just blindly link to more WaPo coverage and pretend your last foray never happened?
Nimrod please back up your assertion that the Iraqi government supports the insurgency
Pretty sure he meant the other way around.
Please watch something else besides Fox News.
Link to Juan Cole?
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA…….
You link to Newsbusters and expect us to take it seriously.
“Your side wanted to throw in with Adolf, remember?”
Doc Squid
Your absence didn’t improve your thought processes. Perhaps you forgot about the NAzi Soviet pact wherein progressives allied with Herr Hitler and came up with some good ‘ol John Doe music about staying out of Mr Roosevelts war.
Link to Juan Cole?
Of course, you wouldn’t expect a guy who spends all his time studying the region and who can read and translate the language to actually know anything, would you?
progressives allied with Herr Hitler and came up with some good ‘ol John Doe music about staying out of Mr Roosevelts war.
“Progressives” opposed Roosevelt?
Go ahead and show us how to split that hair.
You know quaker, tokyo rose fit that description too….
Quaker, Read the history of the American left right after the Nazi Soviet pact. Read about pete Seeger. Look at his song lyrics of the period. Check out the Hollywood peace Forum. Plenty of progressives toed the Soviet line. (To be fair many didn’t also). The entire movement didn’t unite behind “Mr Roosevelt’s capitalist war” until after Hitler invaded Russia.
This is the logic, Quaker:
Communism = left of centre
All left of centre thinking = identical
Therefore early Soviet communists = modern-day progressives
But of course not all right of centre thinking = Nazism. That would be silly.
Could you just never type again, please?
(To be fair many didn’t also).
That’s all I’m askin’.
And while we’re at it, advocating staying out of a war isn’t the same as being “allied with Herr Hitler.”
Peed’: What are you talking about?
I love how Pedro and Dugger are too f-f-f-f-frightened to actually defend the merits of the war with Iran that CheneyBush is leading our nation towards.
Good point. Pedro, Dugger? War with Iran? For or against?
The war that bush is for?
“President Bush on Monday sought to dampen speculation about a U.S. military strike on
Iran as the Islamic republic’s president softened his tone, too, and said he wanted dialogue rather than confrontation”
I only want war as a last resort….
I only want war as a last resort….
Some of your fellows seem to be hoping that “last resort” arrives quickly.
You?
Gee, that’s funny, cuz that’s exactly what Bush said in 2002.
Remember, there is no concrete proof that the government of Iran has done anything wrong.
So, I guess it’s a slam-dunk.
I want it to arrive just in time….not a moment too soon, or a moment too late.
Wow this lefty ,loosy-goosy, no rules stuff is really fun. I am not used to speaking in such fluffy and imprecise terms, but it sure does take the pressure off!
Duros what would you consider concrete proof of Iranian government involvement? Would that be enough to justify attacking them?
Check out the Hollywood peace Forum.
I’m curious. Is that the same Hollywood Peace Forum that was an offshoot of the Anti-Nazi League?
And are we discussing siding with Hitler or with Russia? The Hitler-Stalin pact notwithstanding, those aren’t the same.
a) We don’t know, we haven’t seen it yet.
b) There are still several things you can do to punish Iran for implausible transgressions such as this, that fall far short of triggering a potential world war.
I want it to arrive just in time….not a moment too soon, or a moment too late.
Thus, your forgone conclusion.
After all, we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, right?
what would you consider concrete proof of Iranian government involvement?
Oh, I dunno, maybe uniformed troops and tank columns crossing the border into Iraq to square off solely against US forces. You know, regular army, not teenagers in ski masks.
Saddle up, boys, we’re going to Cambodi…I mean, Iran!!!
I really need reassuring that someone somewhere can stop this before it starts.
Perhaps you forgot about the NAzi Soviet pact wherein progressives allied with Herr Hitler and came up with some good ‘ol John Doe music about staying out of Mr Roosevelts war.
Of course, this omits why the Soviets entered into such a pact: Conservatives in England knuckled down to Hitler at Munich. Joe Stalin, knowing full well that Hitler intended to go after him and startled that England and France (England especially, as Chamberlain was pushed Daladier, who also thought he needed more time to improve his forces) sold out Czechoslovakia so quickly, sent Molotov to negotiate with Hitler to buy him time. (And if you want to lump all left wingers together, do not forget that Daladier was a socialist, whose lack of backbone forced Stalin to negotiate with Hitler, and who responded to public criticism of the pact by outlawing the French Communist Party.)
The truth is even the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact has a lesson in conservative perfidity.
c\was pushed\pushed
Nimrod, not only wrong, but consistently wrong…this from your side of the pond
At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme,” says the paper, dated February 7 and circulated to the EU’s 27 national governments ahead of a foreign ministers meeting yesterday.
“In practice . . . the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html
Nimrod “can’t we all just get along…!?”
So, you are in favor of a “pre-emptive” strike.
At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium
oops
Oh, well, if Iran might be able to manufacture nuclear weapons one day that could potentially be pointed at America, possibly, then we really have no choice but to END COUNTLESS LIVES OVER IT.
Thank god! We finally knocked some sense into Nimrod!
You are quite genuinely terrifying.
duros,
If intel was good and (as Pres) I knew that Iran had or was on the verge of having nuke capabilities, I would bomb their nuke industrial (and anything remotely associated with it) infrastrucure back to the stone age. Might require wiping out there air force and air defens estructure. Don’t think I would invade un less there was absolutely no alternative (but I doubt I would have gone into Iraq also).
So hell yeah, I am in favor of pre-emption.
And so are you.
The problem is us civilians can’t tell if the intelligence is good, especially with Bush in office. He just has no credibility and a history of only looking at the intelligence he likes, no matter how fake, false, dubious, discredited, or cooked.
“On the verge” could very well mean 15 years.
Settle down, Beavis.
And frankly, I think the Israelis would probably beat you to it.
midder,
Guess what. Its hard for the military and intelligence specialists to know if intelligence is good. That was true before Bush; will be true afterward. You may hate Bush, but no one has estblished that he cooked any books or lied. It may be that the case wasn’t strong enough - I don’t know (neither do you). The process of vetting intelligence is as important as gleaning the original intelligence.
duros,
Yes it could (15 years). I would want good, hard intelligence. I do know there is a gap between coming up with the war head and having an effective delivery system. Its a very hard mission for the Israelis - range wise. Something goes wrong, the region explodes and the Iranians still have nukes. The Iranians hate us anyway, I would just take out the whole ‘nucular’ infrastructure and protect Kuwait and Saudi. They can go batsh*t crazy within their own borders all they want - but without nuke warheads and delivery systems.
Provide that list of Iraq WMD claims Bush made that turned out to be true, Dugger. You keep arguing he didn’t cook the books, show us. You may love Bush to the exclusion of rationality, but the rest of the world knows he cooked the books and lied. His judgement and credibility are suspect.
Man, you guys sound more like George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove every day.
I SMELL A BIG COMMIE RAT
Did it get too deep for you midder? I keep arguing a lie hasn’t been proven or that there is any proof he cooked the books. I don’t see a lie or cooked books, but actually neither you nor I have the security clearances to know.
And I don;’t love Bush. he’s too liberal for me. I just don’t like seeing hate go unchallenged - and Bush is defineitely hated on the left.
Of course you don’t see lies or cooked books, you see only through Bush-colored glasses. Of course you love Bush, you have shown your unabashed koolaid sycophancy many times over. It’s why when we laid out solid, A-B-C cases proving various Bush lies you fall back to irrational and irrelevant defenses of said lies.
If you don’t believe the books were cooked, go back and put together that list of Bush claims that turned out to be true. Because most of them were knocked down or discredited as soon as he made them.
Denial. Look it up.
Bush is too liberal for you? What the blind hell?
It don’t get more conservative than this: Bush would be happy to drive this country back to dark ages, except there wouldn’t be whites on this continent, so what I mean is he would love nothing better than to make America into a feudal society. Except the ruling Lords and families own companies that everyone else is forced to work for. You can see the seeds of this in his immigration policy.
Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… makes you think more.
So please keep up the great work. Greetings.