1. If Bush launches a strike without consent of Congress-immediately introduce an impeachment resolution and when it fails, walk out until the election.
2. If he asks, for Christ's sake vote "no."
Of course Kevin, you know and I know neither of these plans will be adopted. And the few survivors of the Republican sweep of '06 will shake their heads and wonder why.

Iran is 10 years from a bomb, at best. This would probably start a global war. God knows it's a wonder we haven't managed it yet.

I disagree. If Bush used force without asking, and then Democrats went after him on it, he'd play the same "can't trust Dems with national security card" he's played over and over again.

However wrongheaded this might be, thanks to the Prez's bully pulpit, that's what the people will hear, and Repubs will profit from it in '06 unless military operations go very badly very quickly.

How likely? Too damned likely.

Dems' best response?
1) This is what we should have kept our powder dry for all along - a REAL threat.
2) 65% of Iraqis are Shi'ites. Our troops in Iraq have their hands full just with the Sunni insurgency. Things aren't any worse for us than they are because we've formed a de facto alliance with the Shi'ites. A strike against Iran will end that alliance for sure. If the President wants to hit Iran, we'll back him - but FIRST he'd better make sure our troops in Iraq are ready to deal with living in a country where practically everyone hates them.

That's my take, anyway.

Operation Barbarossa, all over again.

I think that with the IAEA on our side, the Democratic Party should be perfectly willing to take action against Iran and must say so forcefully. the Democrats must also state forcerfully that no Bush / Rumsfeld led military is capapble of addressing the issue competently. We must acknowledge the need to deal with the threat, and simultaneously express the inabitlity of the current administraton to address it, or to be counted on for an honest assessment.

It is particularly important to stress our agreement with the IAEA in their analysis of the situation in the leadup to Iraq. If they feel that Iran presents a threat we must be willing to accept that their recommendations might imply a need for military action. There is no circumstance under which it can be allowed soley on the basis of Rummy / Cheney intelligence. We need to actively frame the matter accordingly. If our position is simply "no war with Iran", then we should hold our breath and focus our energies on something we can handle like the upcoming baseball season rather than governing the country.

You're kidding, right? Did you listen or read what the "lunatic leader " had to say in its entirety or just hear the choicely edited snippets? Are you aware that Iran is scheduled to start its own oil commodities market in March and that it will not denominate in dollars but in Euros and that is what really has the US oligarchy shitting itself? Do you think there will be no consequences for this strike? What about the great mass of Iraqi Shia that have until now been biding their time? If we can barely keep control of the green zone and the airport now what happens when the Shia hit the fan? What about Iran shutting down the Straits of Hormuz? Where the hell have you been the last two years ? Have you forgotten what utterly incompetent and lying bastards the Bush administration is? But let's just forget all this and shit ourselves because Karl Rove might say we're soft on terror. It's time for the Democrats to show strength and resolve by fighting this absolutely disasterous idea right now. THAT'S the kind of guts Americaqns want to see from the Democrats.

KEVIN DRUM: [blah, blah, blah] we've got the lunatic leader screaming insults at the United States.

KEVIN DRUM: So: What would be the Democratic response if [blah, blah, blah]

If Wes Clark thinks that Iran's nuclear program is easily targetable, he's one of a very few I know of that thinks so.

A year, or ten years from a bomb? That's a very important question. And believe me, there's also one hell of a difference between a "bomb set off on a test range" and a "bomb that fits on top of a missile."

It's a major miracle that we even got this issue to the Security Council. Whether it does much good or not, it will at least drive the issue home. Give the U.N. some rope, and see what happens. At least for a while. I suspect sanctions would raise the mullahs' hackles almost as much as a military attack would. Iranian attempts to block the Persian Gulf would get interesting pretty damn quick.

What I wish the U.S. and other nations were doing right now is supporting the dissidents in Iran. As I understand it, Iran has an even stronger educated secular base than Iraq did. There are union movements there that have some potential as a liberating influence, too.

Maybe Iran needs a bombing attack right now a lot less than it needs a Lech Walesa.

Suggestion for the Democrats: Look at any Bush policy on this on its own merits, rather than seeing what Bush does and setting yourself automatically on the opposite side.

My response if Bush asks for authorization is:

make you a deal - you resign the Presidency, put Wes Clark in charge of the assault, and sure - authority granted.

But authority to George W Bush to go fishing for "security" votes in 06 and 08? No fucking way.

If Bush were to launch a strike against Iran without first making an iron-clad case to the world, and without gathering a world-wide and Islamic world-wide support, his actions will provoke far worse responses than Nixon's extension of the Viet Nam War into Cambodia.

World opinion aside, that action would expose Bush as the reckless and dangerous person that he has been the entire time.

My god, it's like Lucy with the football, Charlie Brown. They're gonna take you in again. Two years from now we'll look back and see it was all manipulated propaganda but hey, who could have known they would lie and manipulate intellegience or manipulate the IEAA or misrepresent their findings, right? I mean it's not like they have ever done that before.

Christ, I give up.

It's a shame we've squandered every last drop of credibility we ever had with the entire world. Yep. A damn shame.

Bush will wait for the UN Security Council to take a position.

He doesn't need to, though. If Bush took out Iran's nuclear facilities now, he would have bi-partisan support from Democrats, plus the support of our allies. This time, including France.

Suggestion for the Democrats: Look at any Bush policy on this on its own merits, rather than seeing what Bush does and setting yourself automatically on the opposite side

Suggestion for Bush-lovers: look at the Bush record so far, instead of setting yourself automatically on the Bush side.

The Dems damn well need a strategy on this one.

You know why? Because to Bush, the strategic implications of hitting Iran won't matter -- if they decide to strike militarily, they will time it nicely for the 2006 midterms, and use it as a cudgel against Dems.

That sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it? The year 2002 is in my mind for some reason ...

The Dems don't need much of an actual policy stance on this --they have no power, and they are not going to be consulted with in any honest way by this administration.

But they damn well need a political stance on this. I'm not sure what it'd be: probably that a military strike is on the table, with international support only, but that they have grave misgivings that Commander Codpiece could actually do it right. He has the reverse Midas touch -- everything Bush touches turns to shit.

And we need to be prepared for the crippling oil embargo if Bush does strike.

If the events of the last week prove anything its that some societies are in no way mature enough to be trusted with "the bomb".

Pakistan was a huge screw up, now we are stuck with supporting their corrupt government because we can't afford to let anyone else control their weapons.

This is some serious shit. The loyal oppostion (we Dems)must continuely press and challenge the administration to be clear, transparent and forthwright in addressing this issue. Posturing for electoral or PR advantage - not acceptable.

Remember, if we attack Iran in any way, we will be attacking the Islamic world (once again) Against that backdrop, this week's cartoon riots ight just seem, well, cartoonish.

In other words, there will be no good options, just some that are slightly less miserable than others.

Posturing for electoral or PR advantage - not acceptable

Yes, it's only Democrats who don't have this option. We have to be responsible. Meanwhile, fiddling while the US gets progressively less safe, because it gives the Republicans an electoral advantage - completely acceptable.

Give me a fucking break.

(b) simply launched an assault without asking Congress?

—Kevin Drum 8:29 PM

Can Bush (as an US president) strike another country without asking the US Congress for permission? Or do Congress only enters the picture if the president want to declare war?

In other news, the guy down the block from me with a huge collection of guns has heard that I'm considering the purchase of a derringer. Word is he's planning a massive assault on my home to make the neighborhood safer.

A year, or ten years from a bomb? That's a very important question.

Washington Post:

Negroponte said that on its current path, Iran "will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade." One year ago, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, then director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress that Iran was within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon.

Take a breath craig, we are on the same side.

If this unfolds violently, I would like to know that my party was able to define and advocate the long term national interest.

Something that wasn't done by either side, 2002-2003.

Can Bush (as an US president) strike another country without asking the US Congress for permission? Or do Congress only enters the picture if the president want to declare war?

Good question. The closest recent similar operation (quick aerial war against military targets in the Middle East) would probably be Desert Fox, which I believe was run under the authority of the original Authorization to Use Force given to George H.W. Bush. I don't recall any specific request for Congressional authorization for Desert Fox, but I could be wrong. I do know the U.N. did not approve.

Wasn't Iran getting more progressive a few years ago, and didn't they become more radical in response to Bush administration, particularly the invasion of Iraq? I never hear this faction mentioned in the current drumbeat coverage.

And Clark has all this information that no one else has, how, exactly?

Can Bush, politically speaking, really refrain from pushing the use of force after Iraq? He did use the WMDs as the key casus belli in the Iraq operation.

Take a breath craig, we are on the same side.

That's nice. Which side are the Republicans on?

Look, the simple truth is that after 5+ years of lying (6 if you count the 2000 presidential campaign), there is truly nothing that Bush could say or do that would convince me that he is being honest on this or any other issue. Nothing.

So I'm sorry if "quick! Attack Iran!" seems to me to be something only being said for partisan advantage in front of the 06 elections - and something never to be mentioned again afterwards.

Bush (and Rove and Frist and Cheney and DeLay and ...) are liars. They can't help it - they just lie all the time about everything. So I go a little gaga when someone suggests that, in the face of that, we have to be the grownups.

Last year the US "sold" some bunker busting bombs to our Isreali friends. I believe they have been threatened by the Iranian President. I suspect there is a reason the US "sold" the bombs to Isreal. I also believe Isreal has a first rate air force. Explain to me why the US is the only player capable of taking action in this situation.

Remember General Clark's air campaign in Kosovo? Clark claimed that it would bring Milosovic to his knees in days. It took weeks. Clark claimed that he had destroyed hundreds of Serbian armored vehicles. The actual count was 14.

Perhaps General Clark should not be our authority for swift, surgical air campaigns.

Democrats should handle Iran the same way most of them handled Iraq.

Insist that Bush work with the international community via the United Nations. Insist that Bush operate in good faith. If the information and policy he advocates is as foolish and deceitful as it was with Iraq, fight him tooth and nail. If his process is straightforward and realistic, support him.

The difference this time around is that we know more than ever that Bush cannot be trusted. Neither his honesty or his competence. So no bull should be tolerated at all, regardless of perceived political consequences.

And the idea of unilateral U.S. action is extremely foolish. On an issue like Iranian nuclear capability, we don’t need any lone ranger action from Israel or the United States, primarily because it is not necessary. Consensus can be built.

Bush (and Rove and Frist and Cheney and DeLay and ...) are liars. They can't help it - they just lie all the time about everything. So I go a little gaga when someone suggests that, in the face of that, we have to be the grownups.

This is exactly why the Dems need a political strategy on Iran, but not much else. An actual foreign policy strategy with Iran for the Dems is almost utterly pointless: the current Republican administration is corrupt to it's core, and has shown zero qualms about using matters of life-and-death national security as political footballs. The entire Iraqi adventure seems to have been timed solely to monkey with the '02 elections, and was purposed for the sole mission of giving Commander Codpiece his wartime President moniker that he wanted so badly. That, and he wanted to one-up Daddy.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Republicans would honestly listen to anything the Democrats had to say about Iran. So the Dems position on Iran is effectively irrelavent.

But the Republicans are damn sure going to try and use Iran as a way to get elected come Nov. 2006 -- especially when you consider how bad things are looking for them right now.

So the Dems need to think long and hard about how to deal politically with Iran and the Republicans. Because it is only if they figure out the politics of the matter that they will be able to have any serious discussion about foreign policy. That is, unless they play the politics right and win the House or Senate in '06, their foreign policy is just pissing in the wind.

The Bush White House and Republican congress will do whatever it takes to hurt Dems this Nov., with zero regard for issues of national security.

It's painfully obvious what the Democratic response would be.

"Wha---? Huh. Well, gee, OK."

Nothing will dissuade the Iranians in their weapons development like 14 days of bombing.

Last year the US "sold" some bunker busting bombs to our Isreali friends. I believe they have been threatened by the Iranian President. I suspect there is a reason the US "sold" the bombs to Isreal. I also believe Isreal has a first rate air force. Explain to me why the US is the only player capable of taking action in this situation.

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 4, 2006 at 9:23 PM

I'm pretty sure Israel is already flexing its fingers on the trigger over this. And no wonder: they do have a lot to lose if Iran goes nuclear. But if a US attack on Iran is bound to create quite a backlash on the Muslim world, can you imagine what an Israeli attack would do?

The Democrats should call for Bush to bomb Iran NOW.

Then if/when Bush does bomb Iran, it'll look like he needed Democrats to get him to take governing seriously.

And that's a story-line WE should be creating...

But if a US attack on Iran is bound to create quite a backlash on the Muslim world, can you imagine what an Israeli attack would do?

If we'd left Saddam alone, we could now pay him to invade Iran for us - and it would have cost a lot less than the $1trillion this little war is going to end up costing us.

Hmmm, I wonder if I'm kidding...

"Democrats ought to figure out now what they think about Iran"

Bless the Democrats, for they are so useful.

But wouldn't thinking about Iran distract from non-stop Bush hatred? Gotta keep your eye on the ball, Kevin.

RT upthread captures a major problem inherent in any action against Iran. What do all of those Shi'ites in Iraq—now sort of, kind of allied with us—do about it? I suspect that our troops in Iraq don't want to find out. War hero Bush could find himself having lost one war—if he hasn't already done so—on account of having started another one. The unfortunate reality is that the leaders of this administration may be so stupid that they don't realize it. So is precipitous action possible? You bet.

Democratic response to anything here? Hah! Don't bet on it. Republicans, who control the Congress? You gotta be kidding. American public opinion? Go kill them terrists Georgie. You betcha.

Surprisingly, tbrosz has a very cogent post. I actually agree with him. Whatever happened to fomenting revolution? We used to be fairly good at it. In fact, we've done that sort of thing in Iran. Iran is ripe for some dirty tricks. But, then, Iraq was too. And look what happened there.

Bend over. Get ready for more casualties in Iraq and $5 a gallon gas. We really are led by the gang that can't shoot straight.

Why is it that Iran's nuclear weapons program is any more of a problem that Israel's or Pakistan's?

Israel is crazy enough to use them.

Pakistan's government can't be considered stable and the most likely replacement government is more likely to transfer nukes to al Qaeda than Iran's government.

Isn't the United States less likely to get into a regionally destabilizing war if Iran acquires nukes quickly?

Israel is crazy enough to use them.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg

The difference is that the leader of Iran has said he wants to wipe Isreal off the map. Also the Mullahs that pull the strings are radical idealouges

I'm unable to care very much about the threat of Iran having a nuclear bomb. Not that there aren't plenty of crazy-ass religious fuckers in their leadership, but that ship already sailed when Pakistan got the bomb. I don't see them as any more of a threat than Pakistan, and in some ways less; Iran has a more resilient civil society and yes, more democracy than Pakistan. Pakistan is about 5 minutes from a successful coup at any point; Iran isn't.

Nor can I find their interest in obtaining nuclear arms to be invalid; the Bushistas made it clear that they feel free to destroy any country that they want, with or without legitimate reasons. They used to call that waging aggressive war, and hung people for it, but it's apparently OK now. And that the only convincing deterrent to is having nukes.

So in other words, I think the country is run by oppressive assholes, but they are acting in a perfectly rational manner, which makes it hard to work up righteous fury, even though I think the world would be better off without them having nukes.

And in response to the person who was saying that it was all more faked intelligence, Iran flat out has the industrial base, scientific talent, and money flow to do it within a reasonable time. I don't think there's much debate about that, though the exact period is arguable.

So I suppose the politically smart thing to do is indeed to get all rabid and foaming to kill! Kill! KILL! And Kevin and co. are undoubtedly correct that the Bushistas will use it to win the '06 elections. I'm just not enough of a hypocrite to be able to wave a flag and cheer it on.

The utter, utter stupidity of wasting billions of dollars, 2000 American lives, and huge amounts of our war materiel to put several hundred thousand American hostages in a country that post 1991 was a neutered backwater I can get behind pointing out, though.

Can Bush (as an US president) strike another country without asking the US Congress for permission? Or do Congress only enters the picture if the president want to declare war?

Brazil Connection -- good question!

Here is the conundrum we are witnessing:
Only Congress has the authority to declare war (US Constitution, (Article I, Section 8) but the President is the Commander in Chief of "the Army and Navy and militia of several states", (Article II, section 2) Which means that the president can order the military to do anything that he wants as he is in command. He cannot however, legally declare a state of war. That is Congress' job. The kicker is that since war is expensive and Congress hold the purse-strings of the Treasury, he has to get his funding from Congress. Hence, Congress authorizes certain uses of military force (as they did with Iraq) so the president can get his funding.

War on Iraq has never been legally declared. What is going on, however, is being funded through legal, if not deceitful, means. (And in my opinion, it is/was deceitful).

Does that help?

I'm disappointed in Wes Clark - this just feeds into thinking there is a military solution. The most pertinent question is what happens after the bombing campaign. My guess is a permanently inflamed Shiite Iran; chaos in the oil markets and the Mohammed cartoon clashes would seem like child play.

Iranian politicians talk trash, so what?

The United States and Israel have openly contemplated first use of nuclear weapons.

IMO, Iran's leaders are just beating their chests. I'm not so sure about the Neo Cons and Likud.

While everyone is ready to pull the trigger, try imagining that the trigger doesn't even exist.

How do you destroy a nuclear program that hasn't created a single weapon?

Iran has no nukes. Wipe out their ability to weaponize material and that will set them back but it may not deter them.

When Israel wiped out Iraq's reactor, it set them back but they kept trying. The Iraqis did what they could to reconstitute a program but fell far short of getting themselves in a position to make a weapon.

While I respect General Clark, he probably doesn't want to acknowledge what would happen to Israelie, US or NATO pilots that would be shot down in Iran.

I mean, the Iranians aren't going to simply power down their air defenses and allow a carrier group to park in the Strait of Hormuz. And they're not about to tolerate strikes launched from Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE or Qatar.

If we're gonna have a reality-based discussion of nuclear weapons it seems like the "nukes are good" perspective should get plenty of play.

Nuclear weapons kept the Cold War from becoming out-of-control.

Why not reproduce this model?

Few noticed the special message Bush sent directly
to the Iranian people last Tues was very similar
to the way he talked to the Iraqi people before the invasion.

I don't get it.

As others have pointed out, up until recently we've been hearing that the Iranians were 5-10 years away from nuclear weapons.

If the US bombs Iranian sites, the Iranians blockade the Straits of Hormuz.

Game over. Saddle up your horse, the 70s oil shocks are going to look like a bump by comparison.

2006 elections will look very far off very quickly.

Up until tonight, I was a Clark supporter. Now I'm not sure I want his hand on the button.

The alternatives are looking like Dukakis from Virginia or Dukakis from Indiana.

What is wrong with this country?

Whatever else about this issue, it is important to make sure that the likely ramifications of any such attack are spelled out to the American people so that they have the facts and a reasonable idea of what to expect if military action is taken. One of the worst things Bushco did regarding the selling of the Iraq war was to leave the American people totally unprepared for the predictable and predicted results, especially since Bushco spent much of its efforts squelching such information instead of presenting the American people with the facts of the matter so they could make an informed decision. Whatever else the American military is stretched really thin and is worn down quite a lot as well because of the Iraq war and occupation. Therefore it needs making sure that discussion occurs about how well that military can deal with not just the mission but the repercussions of that mission given the troops deployed in Iraq as noted by RT as well as elsewhere in that region.

Iran is a real problem politically. Unlike Iraq it does have WMDs, is well known to be working on nuclear technology, and even had links to the 9/11/01 operation at a minimum by letting members slide through their customs without official notice. Not to mention far closer links with regional terrorist groups, including the funding of them and supplying them with weapons capabilities as well. So it does represent a real threat to American security and global security because of the sensitivity of the region on both resource and societal (religious) grounds. So Kevin is quite correct when he states the Dems need to have this thought out now, because trying to do it on the fly will only reinforce the image of Dems being soft/idiots on national security issues.

I am also inclined to think that since this matter is coming to a head in this year that it is extremely probable Bushco and the GOP will use this to try and limit fallout from the various corruption scandals in Congress. The one thing that must worry Bushco is the possibility of having to face a hostile chamber of Congress investigating their activities and actually performing oversight instead of the rubber stamp they have had from the GOP Congress. So they will do whatever they can to try and prevent such an outcome, and unfortunately the GOP and Bushco have proven in 2002 and 2004 that they will use and abuse national security issues and concerns solely for partisan political gains/purposes regardless of what the long term consequences can/will be.

In many ways this is a far more complex issue than Iraq ever was. Iran poses a real threat, and does have the capacity to strike back from any such assault, unlike Iraq. It also will unify the Iranian people like nothing else, and 75 million people all out for blood next door to the great democratic experiment in Iraq, a country 2/3rds of the same ethnic group as the vast majority of Iran will have so many ways of striking back. While their retributions will not be anywhere near as powerful individually as the American attack, like drops of water they will accumulate and in toto will be surprisingly damaging and costly.

What the Dems need to do is approach this rationally. They need to make sure they state that they recognize the threat potential, but that they also recognize the reality of America's armed forces, her credibility and respect on the global stage especially on military matters these days, and the need for a REAL international consensus before doing anything so definitive. The law of unintended consequences loves this sort of thing, especially in that region of the world, as Iraq so graphically reminds us of. They need to make sure they have a consistent message, but they also must be equally insistent on the need for oversight and showing that the aftermath is being planned for in detail as the Iraq war clearly was not. Indeed, that last point could be used to not only defend on Iran but to emphasize the mess because of too little forethought, consideration, or even concern for the aftermath of dealing with Iraq. America can not afford a similar mess from Iran, especially while so many of her troops are in Iraq to begin with. That is the sort of message the Dems need to be thinking along the lines of I'd say.

They also need to be willing to counter GOP talking points about Dems being weak/bad for national security by constantly reminding everyone they were not the ones that did not plan for the occupation of Iraq, nor were they the ones that mismanaged everything so badly despite their attempts to point out the foreseeable troubles that came true. That Bush and the GOP have had a free hand because of their control of Congress and the Executive, so really who is wrong for national security again? Pound it home every single time and mock the GOP spinners whenever they try to claim otherwise. That is the only way to get past it, by being confident about it and standing up for it at every opportunity. After all, it isn't like one is lying about anything, so there is no fear of trouble for false/misleading statements. Not to mention the sight of the willingness to stand the ground will also reinforce this message while undercutting the GOP one about how weak Dems are.

OmigodOmigodOmigodOmigodOmigodOmigod!!!!!!!!

"British intelligence has learned that" Iran "is determined to" "develop weapons of mass destruction" "verified by expatriates and dissidents" "former nuclear scientists of the regime" "popular expatriate waiting to take over seamlessly" "leader of resistance group" "rose petals" "reconstruction will pay for itself" "America-hating leftist traitors love terrorists" "watch what you say"

Whew! Only had to change one word from the original screenplay from 2003.

IRAQ WAS A TOUGH CALL AND I STILL THINK WE WERE RIGHT NOT TO APPEASE HUSSEIN; THE INSPECTIONS WERE NOT EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THEY WERE THWARTED AND THUS DID NOT PERMIT US SECURITY; REGARDLESS OF THE WMD THAT MUCH IS TRUE. THE SANCTIONS WERE A WORSE FAILURE. SO, "FRAME" ALL YOU WANT, THE ALTERNATIVE TO MILITARY ACTION WAS ON-GOING APPEASEMENT. AGAIN, IT WAS A TOUGH CALL.

IRAN IS A NO-BRAINER; BETTER NOW THAN LATER. TODAY, ANDREA MERKEL OF GERMANY SAID IT AS ONLY THE CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY CAN SAY IT: THIS IS HITLER ALL OVER AGAIN. WHERE HUSSEIN WAS A WILD-CARD AT LEAST HE WAS RELATIVELY RATIONAL; THE IRANIANS ARE CAUGHT UP IN SOMEKIND OF PHANTASMAGORIC GROUP THINK AKIN TO THE NAZI OCCULT NORSE MYTHOLOGY. AND THEY CAN DO MORE DAMAGE MORE QUICKLY.

I REGRET THE CAPS; BUT AMERICA NEEDS THE REGRESSIVE-DEMOCRATS ON BOARD FOR THIS IRAN CHALLENG - FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE TO THE MEDIA OUTLETS TO THE HOLLYWOOD PARTY CURCUIT TO THE UPPER WEST SIDE VIRTUAL SALONS TO THE FARMS TO THE STREET.

IF THE IRANIANS START SOMETHING, I SAY LET'S ROLL.

[P.S., WE WON'T BE NATION BUILDING THIS TIME; JUST MASSIVE RETALIATORY DEATH AND DESTRUCTION . . . MUCH EASIER.]

Someday somebody is going to ask why the United States of America should be the sole authority as to who should have nuclear weapons and who shouldn't.

It is often true in war that when battles begin to turn in favor of an enemy, that the panicked party lashes out against peripheral enemies as if just one more big battle will turn the tide. The reality is that it is actually a time to concentrate forces, withdraw to defensible positions, and relook at one's strategic objectives. Would that Murtha was in charge. These guys are still trying to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail. My suspicion is that the administration is trying to deny victory in Iraq to Iran by another name. The Iranians are fools if they keep this up, however, they have no dog in this fight and can wait for optimal outcomes. But they are also foolish zealots and may glow in the dark for their love of opposition. For America, it may be too late--leadership is crazed or abysmal.

Capabilities become intentions,if the administration thinks it has the capability to take out the Iran nuclear program,it's a short walk to doing so. I agree with those who have said the Dem position should be to let the international pressure continue,back the Russian plan to process uranium,and insist the administration have a real good bug out plan for the troops in Iraq. In 1979,there were what 59 hostages? Now there are 138,000 just over the border.

Is the United States more secure than it was before invading Iraq?

How will Iraqi Shi'ites react to the U.S. military slaughtering Iranian Shi'ites?

Nuclear weapons kept the Cold War from becoming out-of-control.

The elites of both sides of the cold war really, really liked staying alive; and, the governments involved were relatively stable. In an Islamic arms race...not so much.

Dr. Sardonicus:

Why? Because it's in our national security interest to be the sole authority. It was simple enough to answer.

TOH

How long before we see Joe Biden at the Rose Garden endorsing Bush's determination to attack Iran, undercutting Harry Reid's attempt to stop a stampede of frightened Democrats?

Like Mr Berra said, it's deja vu all over again!

Keith G, what is your evidence that Islamic political leaders lack a self-preservation instinct?

Objective Historian: My mentally ill incarcerated clients send me letters in all caps like your post. Don't apologize for it, don't do it! It's obnoxious and just plain unreadable.

"Objective", what is your evidence that it's more in U.S. national interests for the United States to police nuclear weapons proliferation than it is in our interest to allow the United Nations to fulfill the function?

IF THE IRANIANS START SOMETHING, I SAY LET'S ROLL.

Roll where? Think it'll be a cake walk?

Think again.

And where, pray tell, are you going to find the troops, the ships and the weapons inventory to do this? Did it escape people that our military is stretched to the breaking point, our Navy is well below the 300 ship mark, our airlift capability is also stretched thanks to Iraq and our inventory of weapons and spare parts has been seriously depleted--depleted to where they've raided the stocks in Korea, only to find much of the gear stored there has rotted?

Let's roll, huh?

Roll over Iran's air defenses? Roll past their Surface to Ship missile defenses?

How about we chat about the last time US Marines took on Iran. We had a bit of a dustup on an oil rig in...hmm? Was it 1988? Can't recall right now.

An amazing thread, with tbrosz as the voice of reason.

I'd be hugely skeptical of the idea that some airstrikes and a few commando raids will dispose of the whole program. Recall that this is the same bunch that was SURE there were active WMD programs in Iraq; if they were that wrong there, how can they know enough about the disposition of the Iranian nuke program to take it all out surgically?

Aside from the implausibility of the mission, there's also the question of what this does with the U.S. troops in Iraq, living among a sea of shiites. Worst-case scenario: we don't really do much more than dent Iran's program, while at the some time making the Iraqi insurgency 2 to 5 times what it is now. Add to that some pictures of dead Iranian women and children from "collateral damage," and chaos on the world oil markets, and this has the capacity to go very very wrong.

By now I should think it should be clear that Democrats should never, ever cooperate with the Bush White House. Will they be called traitors? Of course they will. They will be anyway. Oppose Bush's action, which is certain to turn to crap just as all his others have. What if war with Iran turns out to be a huge success? If it does, it'l be a first for W.

1930s passivism killed 60 million people from 1939-1945; the policy of peace does not mean there will be no bloodshed.

I'm telling you; no appeasement. Zero. If the satelitte mounted Geiger counter goes off over Iran, LAUNCH; death and destruction.

And this time, let's just commandeer the oil, let the U.N. audit us, pay the Iranians royalties in food and medical supplies and use the remainder as salaries for local police and militia to keep the peace as best as they can; if we suspect terrorist camps, we pinpoint missile strike 'em from the Persian Gulf

Then we step back and let them kill each other if they want or watch them figure it out on their own if they want.

TOH

Just to make something clear here, General Clark has never advocated for following the military option...He has been a strong and clear advocate of opening a dialogue with Iran...and now! He has repeatedly mentioned the fact that the consequences of a military option here may be very bad indeed....but he has not denied that there is a military option. You can watch or listen to his recent remarks in his "Real State of the Union 20006" address at the New America Foundation conference last week here: http://securingamerica.com/node/560 .

It seems to me that all that he was doing in this session with the bloggers was expressing his opinion that a military strike could be successful in taking out the nuclear program...not in any way that that is the course we should pursue or that it would be wise at all to do so.

Thanks for reading....

Carl,

Pure speculation.

And some second hand info about rewards of a death suffered while fighting infidels.

Operation Preying Mantis was a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian navy and was quite successful.

If Bush were to launch a strike against Iran without first making an iron-clad case to the world, and without gathering a world-wide and Islamic world-wide support, his actions will provoke far worse responses than Nixon's extension of the Viet Nam War into Cambodia.

Maybe. But I don't recall Israel's demolition of Iraq's program way back when provoking a "far worse respone" than Nixon's extension of American military action in southeast Asia. Remember, we're not talking about a land invasion. We're talking about aerial bombardment and cruise missiles targeting military assets. Much of the world -- including most the governments of the Middle East -- will be grateful.

Now, the obvious objection to this line of reasoning is that Iran's nuke program will require a far longer and more robust campaign than Israel's single strike against Iraq. And two weeks' worth of bombing the snot out of Tehran's WMD facilities no doubt will provoke the usual cries for the blood of infidels from the usual quarters. But so what? What are they going to do about it? Hijack some more planes? They already tried that and we're still standing. Fuck 'em.

By the way. Absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the United States would justify impeachment proceedings should Bush move against Iran without Congressional approval. He's the CIF, and can order such action if he wishes. Did the president get congressional approval for Grenada or Panama? Congress could, of course, vote to withhold funds, but that won't happen, and isn't practical, given the reality that we're talking about a mere two weeks or so worth of military action.

Finally, my guess is, if we strike Iran, we will indeed do so without warning. Bush isn't about to telegraph his intentions to Abjimaniac by asking Congress for a declaration of war. And one last point: before you indulge in talk of Pearl Harbor and Barbarossa, remember Israel's attack against Saddam. Are you seriously arguing that action wasn't prudent and justified?

1930s passivism killed 60 million people from 1939-1945; the policy of peace does not mean there will be no bloodshed.

Oh, please. Put away the war drums and have a cup of shut the fuck up.

Cake walk?

You are confused as to my plan; this should be a Bosnia type mission. We're not looking to control territory or supervise people like in Iraq (arguably a mistake), but a la W. T. Sherman and U.S. Grant, we're going to kill enemy combatants and destroy economic infrastructure from the air. If mayhem ensues below, that's their problem.

TOH

Keith G, are you concerned that your stereotypes of Muslims are dehumanizing?

Donald Rumsfeld today...

Speaking before the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program, Rumsfeld accused Tehran of sponsoring terrorism.

What are all the questions about? Iran is related to terror, therefore the AUMF gives the President the authority to do whatever he pleases against Iran. He is at the "zenith" of his powers now.

What...you didn't get the memo?

Enjoy Monday's kabuki dance, err...hearings.

That is all.

Maybe Wesley Clark knows something I don't (in fact, I've no doubt he knows plenty of things that I don't), but I think the conventional wisdom makes sense because the thing that gives you a nuclear capability, long term, isn't bricks and mortar or industrial plants, it's the contents of people's heads and their hard drives. And you can probably store the entire critical intellectual property of the Iranian nuclear program on a single DVD-ROM.

Sure, you can probably set them back by several years, even assuming they haven't dispersed their centrifuges and all the other essential paraphenalia (for instance, the uranium gas feedstock production, or the machine shop where they produce the crucial mechanical components for their centrifuges). But it's very difficult to see how you can put them out of business completely.

One consequence of such an attack, assuming the regime survived, would be that they would almost certainly redouble their efforts to get the bomb, whatever the consequences. If that happened, it wouldn't be surprising if the extra intensity of effort saw the bomb program progressing faster than it would have otherwise.

So I really don't see how any air strike could possibly achieve what Clark is claiming.

Pale Rider:

I admit that was probably the best response you could come up with to the FACT that passivism has a long and storied history of encouraging aggression and enabling death of innocents.

You have to grow up, Polyanna.

TOH

As Kevin says, serious Dem politicians and the Dem policy apparatus need to thinks seriously about this issue and come to some conclusions.

Not, however, simply in order to have a position to talk about on TV in response to something the administration does. But because that is what they must do to be responsible leaders.

"Objective", I notice you've been ducking my questions.

You'd like to dress yourself up as some sort of responsible intellectual, but it didn't take long for you to resort to namecalling.

Does that help?

Posted by: jcricket on February 4, 2006 at 10:06 PM

A lot - thanks!

You are confused as to my plan; this should be a Bosnia type mission.

Right, and the Serbs are just like the Iranians.

Iran controls the flow of the world's oil through the Strait of Hormuz--look it up.

I admit that was probably the best response you could come up with to the FACT that passivism has a long and storied history of encouraging aggression and enabling death of innocents.

Uh huh, and warmongering never killed a soul, eh? What insanity is this--comparing every single modern incident to WWII is the domain of half-wits and blog thread trolls.

As for growing up, well. What an insult.

Carl, puleeze.

If every Islamic leader were as centered as King Abdullah II, I'ld say give 'em all nukes. But again, some of them seem to be rather doctrinaire.

Am I dehumanizing some of them? Fuck yes! Some of them have gone a long way dehumanizing themselves.

Don't paint me as evil dehumanizing lout. I am just a regular yellow dog lout

You all are forgetting about what happens to our troops in Iraq if there's an attack on Iran. Up until now we've lost 2245+ troops with only 20% of the Iraqis (the Sunnis) attacking us (excluding a few isolated incidents with Shiite militants). Moqtada al-Sadr has pledged to attack American troops with everything he's got if the US moves on Iran, and his people control half of Baghdad.

As for Wes Clark, he's now off my list of acceptable Democratic candidates; it seems he's in the same category of cockeyed optimists who thought that the US could win in Vietnam if only they were put in charge.

And two weeks' worth of bombing the snot out of Tehran's WMD facilities no doubt will provoke the usual cries for the blood of infidels from the usual quarters. But so what? What are they going to do about it?

Blow up some tankers and sink them in the Straits of Hormuz. Cut off all oil supplies out of the Middle East, for the foreseeable future.

I get the strong impression the neocon shills are out. If they are getting their marching orders, that's scary.

IAEA has not found evidence that Iran has violated its Safeguards Agreement.

'Rather, it cites "information that had been made available to the Agency" [by the US] that contains "allegations" that the Iranians claim (and can perhaps demonstrate) are "baseless."'

Does this sound familar?

Carl,

TOH is one of the fake handles Alice/Patton uses after she's read something...

Caps Lock is cruise control for cool.

If and when we look headed down the road to Osirak II: Iranian Boogaloo, the Dems best position would be to:

a.) Support the attack. Yes, making a further mess of the Persian Gulf is Very Very Very Bad. However, President Admad has a Bush-like view of international diplomacy, kicking him out of office any time soon isn't likely, and nothing says electoral suicide like saying "well, dadgummit, let the Iranians have nukes then".

b.) HOWEVER, make sure to note quite loudly and firmly that we got to this point because of Bush's foreign misadventures. Weren't we invading Iraq to show the Axis of Evil who's boss? Oops. Now we have to use the Big Stick, and heaven help all of us if President Admad declares all-out war on the Great Satan and Friends. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if it wasn't for the Administration's bungling.

The Democrats should approve such a request from Bush ONLY IF Bush is forced to complete his National Guard Service and he fights in any other war started by him. He also would have to live with stop/loss so he can't count on getting out when he completed his ervice time.

Who else feels the world has gone insane?

Politicians create threats to be dealt with. The country fell for it with Iraq and now the same people--people like Kevin Drum--are falling for the trick again.

Let's say for hypothetical argument Iran is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons. So what?

Oh, let's be sure to be real surgical now in our strikes; pinpoint bombing and special-ops. Don't want to hurt anyone no matter how many of our troops it puts a risk.

Can you Regressive-Democrats post from outside your opium dens for a little bit?

How about we put the big hurt on them with as few casualties and and as little expense to ourselves as possible? That is the point, right. Compliance now, deterrence on-going. Firebomb Tehran (or do so to whatever degree and for however long required to have compel compliance) and you won't have to find the nuclear facility needle in the Iranian country-side haystack.

THE OBJECTIVE IS COMPLIANCE BY IRAN, END OF STORY. WE HIT THEM WITH WHATEVER CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS CAUSES THE MOST DAMAGE TO THEM AND RISKS THE LIVES OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM LEAST; AND WE DO IT FOR HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES UNTIL THEY COMPLY. IT BEGINS NOW WITH SANCTIONS AND ENDS RAPIDLY WITH EITHER COMPLIANCE ON THEIR PART OR THE PHYSICAL ERADICATION OF THE IRANIAN RULING THEOCRATIC ELITE PLUS WHATEVER UNFORTUNATE COLLATERAL IRANIAN CASUALTIES AND DAMAGE OCCURS. WHETHER IT ENDS SOONER OR IF IT ENDS LATER, EITHER WAY WE DID OURSELVES AND THE IRANIAN PEOPLE AND MANKIND A FAVOR.

If you Regressive-Democrats ran the Union during the Civil War, our African-American countrymen would still be picking cotton upon pain of the whip to this day.

We can do this for $10-20 billion and 50-100 U.S. casualties if do it the right way. If we try invasion, occupation, and nation building, it will mean far greater U.S. military deaths and expense.

TOH

Wes Clark was my second choice to Feingold before this.

Now, I can't support him either. He was too clever about Iraq always equivocating and hedging.

If he wants to go to war with Iran while we're occupying Iraq he's a fool or a stooge for the Israel lobby.

"Regressive Democrats"? Way to be "objective"!

A question I have been wondering about is what happens when General Pervez Musharraf finially takes one for the team and the leadership of Pakistan is up for grabs.

Do we have a plan to take out their nukes?

I know! I know! Have some Democrats secretly meet with the Iranian President with a stack of bibles and a birthday cake and arrange to sell them some modern weapons systems.

No wait, that's been done.

OK -- I know! Overthrow the semi-democratically elected leadership and install an autocratic police state! We'll call it Plan Mossadegh!

No, ait, that's been done too.

OK. Last one. In a fit of national assertiveness, Tony Orlando and Dawn, and yellow ribbons, we'll 'Bomb Iran' to the tune of the Beach Boys' 'Barbara Ann', crash some helicopters into the desert, and tell America to start wearing sweaters. I got my yellow ribbon already! "Bomb bomb bomb, Bomb bomb Iran!"

Do NOT tell me we've done that, too!

TOH is one of the fake handles Alice/Patton uses after she's read something...

I didn't think they gave Sepp access when she was on her meds. And here I was thinking TOH was the ghost of General Buck Turgidson.

Bush's 'appeasement' of a corrupt government in Sudan and his 'appeasement' of Kim Jong Il has consigned hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths, so don't even attempt to paint the Dear Leader of the USA as anything other than a puppet of a Permanent Campaign Machine.

The only reason why they're beating the war drums is that 37% approval rating and a non-existent domestic agenda, coupled with being caught breaking various laws.

There's no reason to attack Iran. Pakistan is a bullet away from having exactly the same kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime as Iran.

Now, if that were to happen, when will we be attacking Pakistan? And, trust me, the terrain in Pakistan and Iran isn't quite as favorable as Iraq.

Now, TOH, give us a geography lesson, if you may.

Another lunatic conspiracy theory!

TOH had only one or two other alias a few months ago and briefly. He or she is his or her own man or woman. I don't even know Alice or Patton other than to presume they are geniuses based on you having mistaken them for me.

Put that rash conclusion in the same filing cabinet you have with the map pinpoining where in Canton 60,000 Ohio Kerry ballots are buried.

TOH

"You are confused by my plan...."

Historian, you call that a plan? It is sheer lunacy. It puts our troops in Iraq in mortal danger. It creates a situation where the nuclear option not only becomes feasible, but could well be considered necessary as the blowback unfolds.

And the result: A nuclear wasteland in the ME, possible economic ruin, and the stage set for a pre-emptive attack on the US by some future well armed, but wisely very wary competitor.

Take your geopolitical ravings back to the local John Birch Soceity chapter meeting, and let grown ups handle this.

Let's say for hypothetical argument Iran is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons. So what?

Try a continued Republican majority, Carl.

Pakistan is a bullet away from having exactly the same kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime as Iran.

This is incorrect. Pakistan is and always has been a much greater threat of cooperating with al Qaeda than Iran is or Iraq was.

Several points about Iran:

1. I may be obtuse in the extreme on these matters, but it seems to me that the whole deterrence angle is being overlooked here. I'm in my 50s. I remember the Cold War vividly. We faced a nuclear armed Soviet Union, one that had the actual ability to inflict damage on the United States, not simply the potential to do so. But we faced the Soviets down (and ultimately prevailed) in part because of our overwhelming deterrent. Why would deterrence NOT work against Iran? I think two Trident submarines in the Indian Ocean, each with 240 warheads aboard, might sober up even the most reckless government.

2. Suppose we do strike Iran by air. Then what? Are we to suppose Iran will miraculously decide they don't need nuclear weapons--or will they redouble their efforts to obtain them?

3. How will the Muslim world react to such a strike? Would Pakistan's government survive in the wave of Muslim hysteria that would follow a massive Western (especially U.S.) air attack on Iran? What if a Muslim fundamentalist government gains control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?

4. Iran is a nation of more than 630,000 square miles. If an invasion and occupation were to be launched, how long would such an operation take? Are the Westernized elements of Iran that want to see its government overthrown strong enough to assist us in such an endeavor? Would an invasion and occupation of Iraq with the current forces at our disposal even be feasible? Would an occupation drown in an insurrection even more terrible than the one in Iraq?

5. It's easy to hate Iran's loathsome government. I hope for a revolution that will overthrow it. But when we're talking about bombing, invading, conquering or occupying we always have to consider the two most important and often unspoken words:

Then what?

There's no reason to attack Iran.

You know that. I know that. But will it play in Peoria?

Pakistan is a bullet away from having exactly the same kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime as Iran.

In that case, I'd fear more for the people of Pakistan and India than I would anybody else. Call me a skeptic, but I don't think they have enough nukes to aim them both south and east at the same time.

Geez, you people! General Clark is not advocating going to war with Iran!!! Please...He was just giving his opinion that a military strike can be initially successful in some wyas. He's not saying we should do that. Please, read and listen to what the man has to say about the situation and how we should handle it....

Listen to his speech this past week here:
http://securingamerica.com/node/560

Read some of the transcripts or watch some of the files here:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/8

Here's a few excerpts of some of his remarks on the situation....

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Depends on what you're going to do about Iran. Now, you can certainly run bombing strikes and Special Forces activities and you can go after those nuclear sites. You could-

Neil Cavuto: You have to know where those nuclear sites are.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.

Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'
...........

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: There's not a lot of time, and we should, you know, while we keep the military option on the table, there should be no illusions about the military option. The military option is going to be difficult, there are no guarantees that all of the site are located and there will be enormous consequences for the United States if the military option is used, economic consequences, diplomatic consequences, consequences in the war on terror, and so forth. So this is not an option that can be looked at lightly. It's simply the fact that if Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon, we have to determine ourselves whether that's acceptable..

Brigitte Quinn: Mmm hmm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And if it isn't, then all options have to remain on the table, and our leaders have to do everything they can to make those options usable.

Brigitte Quinn: Right. Now, we did have General Moore on just about twenty minutes ago or so saying that, and certainly not saying that it's any decision that anybody would make lightly, but saying it, essentially, it is doable. Would you agree with that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's possible to construct a military option that could be, could approach adding five to eight years to the development cycle of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In other words, you could set them back.

Brigitte Quinn. Mmm Hmm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think that you can totally eliminate the possibility, and remember after such a strike, it's very possible that A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan or some other country would come rushing to the aid of Iran.

Brigitte Quinn. Mmm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Ahmadinejad doesn't-

Brigitte Quinn: But how, how would you set them back- before I let you go General?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You'll take away a certain number of their facilities. You'll take out their command and control, their missile testing, their missile launching facilities, their aircraft, delivery systems. A whole lot of things will go out along with the nuclear facilities that we know about. This will all be a setback, but it won't necessarily prevent some other nation intervening immediately to feed them the resources they need to, let's say, conduct a terrorist strike back against us with weapons of mass destruction.

...................

I can understand how one can possibly intepret Kevin's account as Gen Clark advocating for a military strike as a viable option but read more closely, look at what else he's said and written...That's not what he was doing here....

Again,t hanks for reading, if anyone is....

Dustbin,

Not to be insulting, but comments like yours make me feel like Democrats fundamentally see foreign policy through the prism of domestic politics.

But let's play the hypothetical out.

Which is more likely to cut the Democrats off at the knees?

1. Iran acquires a nuclear weapon.
2. The national debate before the 2006 elections is about whether to go to war against Iran.

We pretty well know how option #2 plays out, right?

but I don't think they have enough nukes to aim them both south and east at the same time.

I think it only takes one, but thanks for playing.

The troops in Iraq are either bunkered or removed during the Iranian operation.

The alternative is we let a 21st Century Nazi-esque Party with avowed expansionist intent (like the 20th Century Nazi Party) and a declared hostility to the U.S. build a nuclear arsenal. THAT IS SHEER LUNACY.

We must strike now or suffer greatly later. This is our 1935 Rhineland/Saar moment. We must act and act with overwhelming force. We must snuff out this flickering flame of ambitious agression with TNT upon TNT. Freedom and democracy cannot play the fool here.

Our only arguable mistake in Iraq was that we showed our conquered enemy TOO MUCH MERCY at the expense of too many U.S. lives. We should have established a perimeter around the oil, pinpoint targeted even the most slight sign of terrorist activity and let the Iraqis firhg it out or work it out. Mercy, like pacifism, taken too far is inanity and suicide.

TOH

If you Regressive-Democrats ran the Union during the Civil War, our African-American countrymen would still be picking cotton upon pain of the whip to this day.

No, we'd have kicked the South's ass all over again, and that's a fact. It's called having the vast majority of the country's industrial base in the Northeast. Try reading some of that history you claim to be objective about.

We can do this for $10-20 billion and 50-100 U.S. casualties if do it the right way. If we try invasion, occupation, and nation building, it will mean far greater U.S. military deaths and expense.

Does it get any stupider around here?

I thought the Republicans were AGAINST nation building before they were FOR nation building.

Bloodthirst fucks like this are all too ready to spend lives on foolish things. Again, warmongering never killed anyone and appeasement is history's greatest monster.

No, wait. Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster.

Bush doesn't need the Dem's permission to do whatever the hell he wants. If he asks congress for anything it will only be to let him spread blame to