Bush sent weapons to Israel. Iran sent weapons to Hezbollah. Bush must have figured that Americans wouldn't tolerate any more of his wars, so we're fighting Iran through Hezbollah via Israel. Reminds me of a chess game. I think this is the fault of Papa Bush. He should have given Georgie more GI Joes to play with as a kid.
Now that there is an agreed cease fire, Israel is stepping up the offensive. (Any surprises here?) I wonder how many more innocent people they will kill in Lebanon - including Christians - and how much more of Lebanon's infrastructure they will destroy before they finally cease their fire.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Well, here it is, folks. The beginning of the end of humanity, as Congress sits paralyzed and watches it happen (unless they finally grow a backbone and say *ENOUGH* to Bush).
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
That's the name they're using, the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as enormous, hectic and operational, Hersh writes.
One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government, The New Yorker pointed out.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.
But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.
There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries, the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.
The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke a chain reaction of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.
If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle, the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.
And we have to worry about our own economy. Afraid to find out what is next.
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
Just my feeling
To the republicans that have posted today on the liberal board..I enjoyed reading your posts..They were thought-worthy and kind of telling a bit about the posters. I hope and wish we can keep this board as an insightful debating board..Cause, let me tell ya, the bickering and anger, displayed from both sides, just kills me..it upsets me so..You have my word, I will try my best and If I stray into nastiness, both liberals and republicans, please call me on it..
I know the feeling..its like we are
in a paralel universe to America (like in Mirror Mirror for you old Star Trek fans:) Its scary. I keep waiting to hear Rod Serling say something about the Twilight Zone..and it just gets worse all the time.
I had a feeling you did......sm
so I gave you a little nudge....was pretty sure you wouldn't be keen on that one....
:-) feeling better?
x
Bad feeling?
Well then by all means put another "cowboy" only this time a Military Cowboy in the white house and see what that does not bring. Maybe if someone would sit down and talk to our enemies instead of throwing bombs on them we could actually get something done in our own country. I don't like McCain's attitude, reminds me of my grandmother - look at them, decide you don't like them and walk away. It is time to put differences aside and come together - whether he is a smooth talker or not, at least people are talking.
Wow, feeling a bit touchy are we? After all...
Excuuuuuze me for asking.
My main feeling is that we are
somehow purposely being herded through a squeeze shoot - by the time we have lost our jobs and insurance, we will be more than happy to accept socialism. none of this bail out is going to trickle down this far; in fact, we are the source of money with our pennies and dimes so they can have bonuses and vacations. When I got laid off last year, it was the first time in over 21 years that I had thanksgiving, christmas and new year's off. Reliant Energy in Houston is for sell. UTMB Hospital in Galveston just laid of 3800, they are the largest employer in this county. Everybody can't be bailed out. Buckle up, everybody.
Ask Mrs. Bridger.....I have a feeling she knows; that's why
nm
I have the cure for your feeling.
If my posts make you uncomfortable, by all means don't read 'em.
Guy goes to the doctor and says "Doc, ya gotta help me. It hurts when I do this". Doctor says "Well then, don't do that!"
Get it?
Far be it from me to talk you out of your feeling of unfairness. sm
However, posts have been deleted on both boards. There are two specific posters who are targeted by the liberals repeatedly (and you quoted one here). Besides, liberals are sissies. This whole thing is like holding your breath until you turn blue because you can't have your way! How do you exist in other political forums. Most of the ones I frequent would laugh me off the board. My last post here. This is just beating a dead horse.
Trust your instincts, know the feeling.sm
Even scarier, some people (sheep) will believe this.
So, ho wlong have you been feeling this hostile
some might conclude that the candidate with a double-digit lead would be the stronger of the two, but that logic evidently escapes you.
I just get the sick feeling in my stomach
that we are screwed either way. Neither of them have the answer. I don't care for either of their plans. All I have left to go on is which of their morals line up more with mine, and that's Mccain/Palin. I have tried to find the "hope" in Obama's plan, but the fact that the first thing he will do is sign the right to choose act when he becomes president just doesn't sit well with me. I just can't vote for him knowing he will do that. It goes against everything my faith stands for. Blast me all you want, but I am a Christian first, American second.
Lately, people will do anything to get their own "15 minutes of fame." That's why you have so many reality shows.
I think it's all despicable and they should not have shown that on TV. Now every other "15 minute" famer will do something on the same order to see if they can get in the newspapers or on TV. Watch and see. There's still 6 days left.
Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 17, 2005; Page A03
CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 16 -- Cindy Sheehan rode into town 10 days ago, a forlorn mother with a question for her president: Why did my son die in Iraq?
But now the same wave of publicity and political anger that she rode to become a nationally known symbol of the antiwar movement threatens to crash down on Sheehan herself.
Cindy Sheehan hugs a supporter at her protest site in Crawford, Tex. Conservatives have criticized her, and she says some sympathetic groups have agendas she does not share. (By Jason Reed -- Reuters)
Conservative commentators and Web sites are taking aim at Sheehan with the same ferocity she has aimed at President Bush. In part, they are using her own words against her -- reciting such controversial comments as her vow to refuse to pay taxes to a government waging an "illegal" war and her desire to see Bush impeached.
The backlash is becoming a new object lesson in how saturation media coverage and the instinct for personal attack are shaping political debate. Some independent commentators said the pushback on the right has succeeded at scuffing the public sympathy and deference she had earned as the mother of a fallen soldier, and has shown how virtually any subject relating to the Iraq war and Bush's presidency is viewed through a partisan lens.
"Cindy Sheehan has emboldened the progressives who oppose the war and caused the conservative diehards who are behind the war to go into a defensive mode," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, a trade publication for talk radio. "Cindy Sheehan is going to be a target, and they'll probably go through her past to find what they can to discredit her."
Since her son, Casey, 24, was killed in Iraq last year, Sheehan, of Vacaville, Calif., has traveled the country trying to drum up opposition to the war in Iraq. She has participated in peace conferences, demonstrations and a mock congressional hearing about the "Downing Street memo" -- notes of a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers that said the Bush administration had decided to go to war and molded intelligence findings to support that decision.
In that time, Sheehan, 48, a soft-spoken woman who says she was radicalized by her son's death, has engaged in her fair share of inflammatory rhetoric.
"It's obvious Cindy Sheehan has become a political player, whose primary concern is embarrassing the president," Fox Television personality Bill O'Reilly wrote Tuesday in an online column. "She is no longer just a protester."
Bush, Sheehan said, lied to the American people about the war and should be impeached. She is refusing to pay taxes in hopes that the Internal Revenue Service will come after her to collect. "I'm not supporting a government that wages an illegal, immoral war," she said. "I want them to come after me, so I can put the war on trial."
Still, she said some of the statements attributed to her are distortions. Contrary to a letter attributed to her that is circulating widely on the Internet, she asserts that she has never said that the United States is waging the war in Iraq to protect Israel.
"I have said a lot of strong things, and I'll stand by everything I said," Sheehan said, adding that she thought the document had been altered. "But I didn't say that."
The scrutiny that has accompanied Sheehan's quick rise to prominence has extended to her family. Several in-laws have publicly criticized her protest -- announcing their displeasure in a release to the Drudge Report. News that Sheehan's husband, Patrick, has filed for divorce has been trumpeted by some bloggers as evidence of her extreme views.
Sheehan acknowledges that some of her views are becoming a distraction. Also, she said, some groups that have aided her protest have agendas -- including conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and some vaguely anti-Semitic theories about the cause of the war -- that she says she does not share.
Consequently, she has asked that her campsite near Bush's ranch be restricted only to organizations of military families, or those who have lost loved ones in the war.
"Attention got focused on the messenger and not the message," Sheehan said. "My thing is ending the war in Iraq. But there are a lot of people who want to attach their horse to my wagon, because of the exposure I'm getting."
The increased scrutiny of Sheehan is coming as some residents here are growing irritated with the stream of antiwar protesters drawn to her vigil.
On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Sheehan announced plans to move the camp from the drainage ditches next to the winding road about two miles from Bush's 1,600-acre spread to a field on a ranch offered by one of Bush's neighbors. The new camp would be about a mile from the president's ranch. All that would be left behind at the original site would be three tents and hundreds of white wooden crosses bearing the names of troops killed in Iraq.
The move followed complaints by about 60 of Bush's neighbors, who petitioned McLennan County officials to expand a no-parking zone around the camp, in an effort to avert the traffic tie-ups that have become commonplace as the protest has grown. Also, Monday night a truck dragging chains and a pipe demolished some crosses; the driver, Larry Northern, 46, of Waco, Tex., was charged with criminal mischief.
Sheehan has promised to remain encamped throughout Bush's five-week stay here and to return whenever the president does. She also announced plans for a series of nearly 1,000 candlelight vigils Wednesday night across the country. Liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org Political Action and Democracy for America are organizing the protests.
"All of this other BS just clouds my message," Sheehan said. "My message is that of a brokenhearted mom sitting down in front of George Bush's ranch, wanting to know why my son died."
We like that the O is a nice looking man, has a nice looking family, has a good strong voice when giving speeches, is physically fit (minus his smoking and possible cancer that lies ahead for him) and especially glad he will not be throwing any "rodeos" for foreign diplomats that come to our country.
However, once he was elected over Clinton the truth started coming out and we felt like quite the fools for buying into his lies. And now his lies are just blatantly out there and he doesn't care if people know he's lying. Our only ignorance was blindly buying into his bull without doing more research on him. The O worshippers/lovers who are cutting down people who have any question about his acquantances, history, citizenship, etc are the ones who are showing their true ignorance. My DH tells me all the time read everything and do not count on one source for information. They have an agenda. Knowledge is what will free the mind.
Iran....
But, governments do speak for their people in diplomatic circles and at the United Nations, regional conferences with other nations where they live, etc.
It is not possible for other countries to differentiate between the people of Iran and the government leaders. They deal with the leaders.
You know, we were fed a line in this country as far as back the first George Bush administration back in 1988-1992 that the people of Iraq did not support Hussein and that he would be overthrown by internal forces. That did not happen. We went in there 3 years ago to free the Iraqi people and it is now a huge mess that has cost thousands of lives, mostly Iraqi, and cost an unbelievable amount of money. Now Iran is making more noise. They hated the Shah because of his close ties to the West, so they put in a lunatic Islamic cleric and turned the country into a religious state. Islam teaches brotherhood and tolerance, so why are the leaders of this religious state so full of hate and spite?
Frankly, I think we should completely withdraw from the Middle East, including Israel. We should deport all Middle Easterners from this this country and from our American territories. We should quit buying your oil and anything else you produce. Leave us alone and we'll return the favor.
I think it is apparent that democracy is not possible in Arab Islamic countries. It works in other Muslim countries, like Turkey and some other places, but obviously the Middle East is not evolved enough to be able to tolerate other people's viewpoints and value systems. Until that happens, there can be no democracy.
Iran
" Rafsanjani, one of the most influential politicians in Iran, supports opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that June 12 elections were rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That puts him in conflict with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has approved of the electoral win. "
" In Washington, President Barack Obama urged an end to the crackdown. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,” he said in an e-mailed statement. "
Till now the verbal support of Obama suffice to give the protesters enough moral support to continue with their just protests. Khatami is detaining his own people and their relatives!
I was listening to a variety of news shows and visiting a number of news sites this morning for my "daily dose" when it struck me that the coverage about Iran is already diminishing - even on sites like Fox News.
Sometimes I think that we Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly...and I also think that people like the Ayatollah rely on the fact that after a brief period of outrage, Americans will forget that there may be thousands of Iranians either in hospitals or sitting in cells waiting to hear exactly how they will be executed.
Iran's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in street protests, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies. A leading cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of the unrest be punished harshly and that some are "worthy of execution."
Now THAT'S an example of why certain countries (and/or their leaders) shouldn't be let loose with nuclear weapons!
This is a shocking and frightening story, and I don't recall reading anything about Congress giving Bush this power.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
I believe he made the statement concerning Iran...
because Ahmadinejad has said publically that Israel should be wiped off the map and he had a vision of the world without the United States. Don't recall North Korea saying anything remotely like that. The big difference in Kim Jong IL and Ahmadinejad is that Ahmadinejad does not care what happen if he nuked Israel or the US...because to him, being martyred is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anyone. And if his attack ushered in the coming of the 12th Imam, mores the better. If you will look at his statements, especially the one about the 12th Imam...that will tell you why he could very well be the one to start a world war III if he had nukes. I believe that is what was meant.
And one could surmise he used that word to shock some out of their complacency.
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat. setting the stage for a war with iran
Maybe this will come to nothing, but the NYT reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html?hp) that ''the amount of uranium that Tehran had now amassed — more than a ton — was sufficient, with added purification, to make an atom bomb.''
So here we go again, people nudging us towards war, with the complicity of the Times. We'll pretend that a nuclear weapon is something you can cook up in your kitchen, once you have the requisite number of atoms. We'll pretend that this is The Greatest Threat We Have Ever Known. Even bigger than Saddam, who ended up not having all the WMD the NYT said he did. We've already begun playing around with 2007's National Intelligence Estimate (see LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story) to make Iran seem more dangerous.
We really just can't leave *anyone* alone, can we?
I think if Israel slings anything at Iran....
it would not just be rockets, and if someone had said I had no right to exist, I might consider slinging some rockets at them myself. I'm just sayin.
And as to Obama being able to hold them back...if he can't be bothered to shake his finger at Iran for crushing protests on worldwide TV, what on earth would make you think he could or would if he could hold Israel back? I have seen nothing to indicate that Barack Obama cares a hoot in heck what happens to Israel. If you look at his connections and who he has loaded his administration with...their agenda is certainly not pro Israel and to be frank I believe they consider Israel expendable, and if the palestinians get taken out as collateral damage...well...you should watch that posted video, and then you should look at a list of the Bilderberg group. Funny how the left always wanted to talk about it because there were many of right in the group...well, there are certainly a lot more of the left in it, and a ton of those are in the present administration. But now that they are in power, amazing how the Bilderberg group is no longer the big bad...sorry for borrowing your moniker there. lol.
Iran's meddling accusations....sm
I disagree TOTALLY with your suggestion how O should have reacted to the ongoing protests, I quote from your psot:
'Yes, it would have been better if he had just said ANYthing just a wee bit strong...hey Mahmoud...couldn't you just stop beating the crap out of protestors in front of the TV cameras? Bad form old boy. Makes you look bad.'
Bad tactic and bad advice.
Sounds like 'cowboy-jargon' to me.
BTW, read the accusations of the Iranian government, although Obama stayed passive and restraint:
'The Iranian government has directly accused the United States of meddling in the deepening crisis. A statement by state-run Press TV blamed Washington for "intolerable" interference.
The report, on Press TV, cited no evidence.'
marks the location of current message within thread
!["](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/largerPhoto/images/enlarge_tab.gif"){kind=small}
![Cindy](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/08/16/PH2005081601715.jpg")
!["](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/global/odot.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_tl.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_bl.gif"){kind=small}
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
