Will Bush Bomb Iran
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
..before they find any WMD in Iraq thats for sure.
..short but excellent panel discussion on IRAQ,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/1
..short but excellent panel discussion on IRAQ,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/1
This thread is almost as old as the "will the Washington Generals beat the Harlem Globetrotters" thread.onthebottom said:
Coinkidink? I think not.
Let me guess, right after the rove indictment and the draft......lookingforitallthetime said:
Who knows but these guys are all tough until a whopping $100 is at stake, then the shriveled nature of their testicle start to show and they run for the hills.....
Too funny - everyone is a big guy on the internet.
OTB
Troop Buildup Continues.....
More troops being added to Dubya's 'Surge'......
Report: General requests more troops
1 hour, 53 minutes ago
BOSTON - The commander of U.S. forces in
Iraq has asked for an additional 2,500 to 3,000 troops to be sent to Iraq as part of the Bush administration's military buildup to crack down on rising sectarian violence and insurgents, The Boston Globe reported.
Gen. David Petraeus wants another Army combat aviation unit — which would be the sixth Army brigade involved in the buildup — deployed to support the more than 26,000 soldiers already on their way to Iraq under the plan opposed by many Democrats in Congress, the Globe said in a report posted on its Web site Thursday night. The report quoted unidentified senior
Pentagon officials.
The request has not yet been made public, according to the report, which quoted one official as saying the extra troops, to be backed by dozens of transport helicopters and powerful gunships, were needed to assist those on the ground now and those expected in Iraq shortly.
It said the new brigade probably will come from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart, Ga., and be sent by May to Baghdad and western Anbar Province, where the Sunni insurgency is based
More troops being added to Dubya's 'Surge'......
Report: General requests more troops
1 hour, 53 minutes ago
BOSTON - The commander of U.S. forces in
Iraq has asked for an additional 2,500 to 3,000 troops to be sent to Iraq as part of the Bush administration's military buildup to crack down on rising sectarian violence and insurgents, The Boston Globe reported.
Gen. David Petraeus wants another Army combat aviation unit — which would be the sixth Army brigade involved in the buildup — deployed to support the more than 26,000 soldiers already on their way to Iraq under the plan opposed by many Democrats in Congress, the Globe said in a report posted on its Web site Thursday night. The report quoted unidentified senior
Pentagon officials.
The request has not yet been made public, according to the report, which quoted one official as saying the extra troops, to be backed by dozens of transport helicopters and powerful gunships, were needed to assist those on the ground now and those expected in Iraq shortly.
It said the new brigade probably will come from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart, Ga., and be sent by May to Baghdad and western Anbar Province, where the Sunni insurgency is based
..but what the article does not say is the troops being rushed over have inadequate training and they are out of armoured Hm'vs and body armour.
Rushed decisions tend to be bad ones.
Bush is making one bad decision after another.
Within a couple of months we are going to start hearing about alot more casualities as these troops go into battle.
As well, the US is now sreading the troops out all over Baghdad, in small
garrisons with Iraqi troops I believe.
Mostly Shia Iraqui's.
Who, had they read Sy Hersh's article would have read how the US is now funding Sunni terror groups. I doubt good for team moral.
And as their fellow Shia's rush their positions, members of the same religion which has known mostly persecution for the past 1,000 years. Or maybe the member of the same tribe.
I wonder which direction some of their gun barrels will point ?
Change is the only constant in the Universe, things get better or worse,
positive/negative,ying/yang, 1/0
things are about to get alot worse in Iraq.
Rushed decisions tend to be bad ones.
Bush is making one bad decision after another.
Within a couple of months we are going to start hearing about alot more casualities as these troops go into battle.
As well, the US is now sreading the troops out all over Baghdad, in small
garrisons with Iraqi troops I believe.
Mostly Shia Iraqui's.
Who, had they read Sy Hersh's article would have read how the US is now funding Sunni terror groups. I doubt good for team moral.
And as their fellow Shia's rush their positions, members of the same religion which has known mostly persecution for the past 1,000 years. Or maybe the member of the same tribe.
I wonder which direction some of their gun barrels will point ?
Change is the only constant in the Universe, things get better or worse,
positive/negative,ying/yang, 1/0
things are about to get alot worse in Iraq.
A counter intuitive and interesting perspective:
The AIPAC Girl
by Patrick J. Buchanan (More by this author)
Posted: 03/20/2007
If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.
Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.
What went down, and why?
"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.
"Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.
"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.
"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York."
According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."
Nichols does not exaggerate.
If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does have the authority.
Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.
They have been flashed the go sign for war on Iran.
Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it together.
Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress -- before launching all-out war.
Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.
For this the nation elected a Democratic Congress?
Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.
The Washington Times agrees as to who bully-ragged Nancy into scuttling any requirement that Bush come to the Hill before unleashing the B-2s on Arak, Natanz and Bushehr:
"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."
This episode, wherein liberal Democrats scuttled a bipartisan effort to require Bush to abide by the Constitution before taking us into a third war in the Middle East, speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill, when it comes to the Middle East.
Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.
As for the presidential candidates, it is hard to find a single one willing to stand up and say: If Bush plans to take us into another war in the Mideast, he must first come to Congress for authorization. And if he goes to war without authorization, that will be impeachable.
All retreat into the "all-options-are-on-the-table" mantra, which is another way of saying, "It's Bush's call."
The corruption of both parties is astonishing. Republicans used to be the party of the Constitution: "No more undeclared wars! No more presidential wars!"
Democrats used to be the party of the people. The people don't want this war. They don't want another. The Jewish community voted 88 percent for Democrats in November, and 77 percent oppose Iraq.
So says Gallup. Yet, just because the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the Peoples' House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush.
Sam Rayburn must be turning over in his grave.
OTB
The AIPAC Girl
by Patrick J. Buchanan (More by this author)
Posted: 03/20/2007
If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.
Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.
What went down, and why?
"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.
"Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.
"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.
"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York."
According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."
Nichols does not exaggerate.
If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does have the authority.
Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.
They have been flashed the go sign for war on Iran.
Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it together.
Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress -- before launching all-out war.
Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.
For this the nation elected a Democratic Congress?
Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.
The Washington Times agrees as to who bully-ragged Nancy into scuttling any requirement that Bush come to the Hill before unleashing the B-2s on Arak, Natanz and Bushehr:
"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."
This episode, wherein liberal Democrats scuttled a bipartisan effort to require Bush to abide by the Constitution before taking us into a third war in the Middle East, speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill, when it comes to the Middle East.
Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.
As for the presidential candidates, it is hard to find a single one willing to stand up and say: If Bush plans to take us into another war in the Mideast, he must first come to Congress for authorization. And if he goes to war without authorization, that will be impeachable.
All retreat into the "all-options-are-on-the-table" mantra, which is another way of saying, "It's Bush's call."
The corruption of both parties is astonishing. Republicans used to be the party of the Constitution: "No more undeclared wars! No more presidential wars!"
Democrats used to be the party of the people. The people don't want this war. They don't want another. The Jewish community voted 88 percent for Democrats in November, and 77 percent oppose Iraq.
So says Gallup. Yet, just because the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the Peoples' House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush.
Sam Rayburn must be turning over in his grave.
OTB
Russia reportedly exits Iran nuke site
Could Dubya have given Vlad phone call warning saying, 'git your folks out of Iran because the Shock & Awe is coming soon'?.......
Russia reportedly exits Iran nuke site
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 42 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - Russia is pulling out its experts from the Iranian nuclear reactor site they were helping build, U.S. and European officials said Tuesday. The move reflected a growing rift between
Iran and Russia that could lead to harsher U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic for its refusal to stop uranium enrichment.
The representatives — a European diplomat and a U.S. official — said a large number of Russian technicians, engineers and other specialists have returned to Moscow in the past week, at about the same time senior Russian and Iranian officials tried unsuccessfully to resolve financial differences over the Bushehr nuclear reactor. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential.
"A good number of them have left recently," said the U.S. official, of the approximately 2,000 Russian workers on site of the nearly completed reactor outside the southern city of Bushehr. The European diplomat, who is accredited to the Vienna-based
International Atomic Energy Agency, said a large number had left as recently as last week.
Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, Russia's Federal Nuclear Power Agency, confirmed that the number of Russian workers at the Bushehr plant had dwindled because of what he said were Iranian payment delays. He would not say how many had left.
In a commentary, Iranian state television criticized Russia for what it described as a policy of procrastination in constructing Bushehr.
"Double standard stances by Russian officials regarding Iran's nuclear issue shows that Russians are not a reliable partner in the field of nuclear cooperation," the commentary said.
The nuclear reactor outside the southern city of Bushehr is not part of Iran's dispute with the
U.N. Security Council and the reactor itself has no potential military use.
The Russian departures are formally linked to a financial dispute with Iran but have a strong political component, linked to international efforts to persuade the Islamic republic to freeze activities linked to uranium enrichment, which can produce both nuclear fuel and the fissile material for nuclear warheads.
Although the reactor is 95 percent completed, Russia announced this month that further work would be delayed because Iran had failed to make monthly payments since January. It said the delay could cause "irreversible" damage to the project.
Because of the delay, Russia also indefinitely postponed delivery of enriched uranium fuel it had promised to provide Iran by this month.
Iran, which denies falling behind in payments, was furious, convinced Russia — which has long blunted a U.S.-led push for the U.N. Security Council sanctions — was now using the claim of financial arrears as a pretext to increase pressure for it to heed the council.
Could Dubya have given Vlad phone call warning saying, 'git your folks out of Iran because the Shock & Awe is coming soon'?.......
Russia reportedly exits Iran nuke site
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 42 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - Russia is pulling out its experts from the Iranian nuclear reactor site they were helping build, U.S. and European officials said Tuesday. The move reflected a growing rift between
Iran and Russia that could lead to harsher U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic for its refusal to stop uranium enrichment.
The representatives — a European diplomat and a U.S. official — said a large number of Russian technicians, engineers and other specialists have returned to Moscow in the past week, at about the same time senior Russian and Iranian officials tried unsuccessfully to resolve financial differences over the Bushehr nuclear reactor. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential.
"A good number of them have left recently," said the U.S. official, of the approximately 2,000 Russian workers on site of the nearly completed reactor outside the southern city of Bushehr. The European diplomat, who is accredited to the Vienna-based
International Atomic Energy Agency, said a large number had left as recently as last week.
Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, Russia's Federal Nuclear Power Agency, confirmed that the number of Russian workers at the Bushehr plant had dwindled because of what he said were Iranian payment delays. He would not say how many had left.
In a commentary, Iranian state television criticized Russia for what it described as a policy of procrastination in constructing Bushehr.
"Double standard stances by Russian officials regarding Iran's nuclear issue shows that Russians are not a reliable partner in the field of nuclear cooperation," the commentary said.
The nuclear reactor outside the southern city of Bushehr is not part of Iran's dispute with the
U.N. Security Council and the reactor itself has no potential military use.
The Russian departures are formally linked to a financial dispute with Iran but have a strong political component, linked to international efforts to persuade the Islamic republic to freeze activities linked to uranium enrichment, which can produce both nuclear fuel and the fissile material for nuclear warheads.
Although the reactor is 95 percent completed, Russia announced this month that further work would be delayed because Iran had failed to make monthly payments since January. It said the delay could cause "irreversible" damage to the project.
Because of the delay, Russia also indefinitely postponed delivery of enriched uranium fuel it had promised to provide Iran by this month.
Iran, which denies falling behind in payments, was furious, convinced Russia — which has long blunted a U.S.-led push for the U.N. Security Council sanctions — was now using the claim of financial arrears as a pretext to increase pressure for it to heed the council.
..and two more small steps towards some sort of action on Iran.
..interesting interview and ya I know Larouche is a nut but it doesnt mean everything on his site is nuts.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3412gen_mahmoud_khallaf.html
..interesting interview and ya I know Larouche is a nut but it doesnt mean everything on his site is nuts.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3412gen_mahmoud_khallaf.html
Last edited:
Besides pat's enlightened views on civil rights, immigration, minorities, jews, .....onthebottom said:
Blaming the democrats because they might not stop the republican president from acting seems a little counter-intuitive (well retarded). It is the same as blaming the police because they didn't stop every crime or the makers of plastic bags because a child suffocated on it. If Bush is stupid enough to order the invasion of Iran, it's his decision and his responsibility.
Iran will be forever grateful Dubya Removed Saddam.Topol-M said:
Saddam being gone only helped Iran regain status making Israel more paraoid than ever. If Dubya can't attack Iran, Israel surely will.
US/Israeli forces are set in place and waiting. All that is left is some concocted 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident' to set off attacks on Iran.
I don't know about the first point, having US troops on two of their boards couldn't have been Iran's first choice.WoodPeckr said:
I agree on the second point, the Israelis really do feel threatened, and every time that happens the threatening country usually gets their ass kicked.
OTB
The US MIC is counting on that Israeli paranoia.....always has.onthebottom said:
It tends to fatten their bottom line and that's what it's really all about.
Israel serves the purposes of the MIC very well, they play Israel like a fiddle........
