Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 21, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

NEW VERSE, SAME AS THE LAST....Can I be the first to say that I don't believe a word of this unless the administration is willing to provide us with some pretty serious backup?

U.S. intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country.

Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations.

And they suggest that new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forging an alliance with Al Qaeda operatives as a way to expand Iran's influence or, at a minimum, that he is looking the other way as Al Qaeda leaders in his country collaborate with their counterparts elsewhere.

Iran is certainly a nasty regime, but we've been down this road before. Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around unless they have some awfully good evidence to share with us. And as the article makes clear, they don't.

Kevin Drum 1:54 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (205)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So, you won't believe them until they reveal sources and methods - perhaps letting the bad guys slip away again like Clinton did with bin Ladin?

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

since all of this could also be said of pakistan, except we're sure it's true, and they've already got the bomb....

i mean, really, how much longer can the country stand a group of completely irresponsible, delusional people running it?

Posted by: howard on March 21, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

you know, don p., you may think you're clever, but really, you're just a deluded enabler who lies all the time. lord knows how you live with yourself.

Posted by: howard on March 21, 2006 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

As long as we control all three branches of government . . .

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Why would anyone need more than the mere word of unnamed Bush administration officials about such a thing as this?

Surely they'd not get something like this wrong.

Posted by: keef on March 21, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

If the administration is truly starting to play the al-qaeda card in relation to Iran, then the jig is up: the decision has been made to go in. Damn, and just when we thought we had bushcheneyrumsfeld on the ropes. Nothin' perks up the testosterone of a cynical press quite like another war.

This means war!
--
HRlaughed

Posted by: HRlaughed on March 21, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

HRlaughed:

Even if al Qaeda is in Iran?

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

U.S. intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country.

Considering the fact that Iran has enough materials to make 10 nuclear bombs, this is a dangerous development which will probably require a military attack of Tehran. Otherwise Al-Qaeda might get their hands on nuclear bombs.

Link

"The United States alleged that Iran has enough uranium gas to make, if sufficiently enriched, 10 nuclear weapons and has called for new inspections in Iran, AFP reported.

"It already has a 85-ton stockpile of UF6 (uranium hexafluoride gas) which, if enriched, could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons," Schulte alleged.""

Posted by: Al on March 21, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Fool me once... Shame... shame on you... {pause} A foomeh can't get fooled again!

Posted by: CKT on March 21, 2006 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

Al:

If these people didn't want to go into Iraq with that evidence of WMD, what makes you think they will with Iran even on the certainty of nukes?

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

you know, Don P., if you weren't already so clearly on the record as a smugly idiotic practicioner of the big lie, one would think that you were practicing irony at 2:08.

but irony requires a functioning intelligence.

Posted by: howard on March 21, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

How many different aliases does Charlie use? There's Cheney and Don P. Are there others?

If I were a psychology graduate student, I'd write a dissertation on Charlie. There's enough material there for an entire career.

Posted by: grh on March 21, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

I think they say that "Jason" and "Jay" are Charlie too.

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

I think they say that "Jason" and "Jay" are Charlie too.

Make that ten careers.

Really, you'd need an entire university psychology department to cover all the permutations of Charlie's psychosis.

Posted by: grh on March 21, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Another "theory" is that Kevin Drum is actually Charlie to bump up site traffic and keep the comment section hopping.

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely (or any other Catholic):

Did you read George Weigel's "Iraq: Then & Now" in the April edition of First Things?

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around unless they have some awfully good evidence to share with us.

Well, in fact, the best evidence the administration has is every action they have taken in the middle east in the past five years to drive these two groups into each other's arms.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 21, 2006 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

Don P.: Even if al Qaeda is in Iran?

I don't usually acknowledge trolls, but...
heh... heh heh..... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Good one!
--
HRlaughed

Posted by: HRlaughed on March 21, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

May I recommend Weigel article in First Things? It puts a new spin on the "first verse" ; )

HRlaughed:

Are you saying it is impossible that al Qaeda operatives are hiding in Iran?

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

You just used the words Bush, intelligence and administration in the same post. You are kidding right?

Posted by: Aimee on March 21, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

Don P.:

I don't think it's very likely.

The radical takfir ideology of al Q would make working with Shia doctrinally dicey for them. Notice how no Shi'ite radical jihad group has arisen in Iraq.

The Iranian mullahs and Osama/Zawahiri/Zawqari don't have all that much in common ideologically.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 21, 2006 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK

After Cheney humiliated himself with his pychotic break he couldn't show up under that handle again, so he showed up as "Karl" for a thread or two before being outed and forced to adopt the persona of Don. P.

There's no point in responding to a crazed, desperate, attention-seeking person who's vowed to "put us all in Gitmo" etc etc.

Posted by: trex on March 21, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Don P.:

Remember, one of Zawqari's biggest targets have been Shi'ites. Iran has no interest in helping radical Sunnis kill Shia for the sake of provoking a civil war.

There may, however, be elements in Iran's military that are helping the more professional elements of the insurgency with things like high-tech IEDs, specifically to kill Americans.

But very unlikely Al Qaeda. Al Q is a sworn enemy of Shi'ite Iran.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 21, 2006 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

Zawqari = Zarqawi

Posted by: rmck1 on March 21, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

Whoa!

'Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping...'

What's next NY Times?
Aluminum tubes?
Remotely piloted drones?
Smoking gun...mushroom cloud?

Give me a freaking break!

Posted by: Davud Helms on March 21, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

The bombing of the Askariya Shrine is being officially attributed to Al Qaeda. The destruction of a Shi'ite holy site would certainly not endear Al Qaeda to the Iranian regime, further calling into question the prospects of a working relationship there.

Unless, you know, you subscribe to the elegantly simply Bush theory that any sufficiently swarthy person with a gun is a "terrist" pure and simple, and any discussion of motivation, loyalties, religion, or cause is just irrelevant.

Posted by: trex on March 21, 2006 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

Of course we don't believe this. They give it away here, as always, with their weasel words:

...or, at a minimum, that he is looking the other way as Al Qaeda leaders in his country collaborate with their counterparts elsewhere.

If you know what someone is doing, you don't use "or". When you are just speculating, than you also should not use "or", since to believe you have it narrowed down to two possible options is absurd and ridiculous.

So, in this case, "or, at a minimum" means exactly what it says...we suspect that Iran is looking the other way while AQ operates in Iran, and, since there is no concrete activity we're accusing Iran of partaking in, but instead "absence" of activity stopping AQ, there can be no evidence to support such an assertion either. We say it, and we expect you to believe it.

Hogwash.

The best they can prove is that there is ANY activity by Al Qaeda in Iran at all. This may be possible. But there's little reason to believe that Iran knows everything that is going on there, in that country, and I'm sure we're not sharing our intelligence with them in every case. Besides, this intelligence is very likely just a bunch of lies by Iranian agitators.

Posted by: Jimm on March 21, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

After Cheney humiliated himself with his pychotic break he couldn't show up under that handle again

When was the psychotic break, and what was it about? I missed it.

I admit I do find Charlie/Cheney/Karl/Don P. somewhat fascinating -- usually people as insane as Charlie can't function at a high enough day-to-day level to be able to get access to a computer.

Posted by: grh on March 21, 2006 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

those WMD we never found? They are in Iran. I think anyone with half a brain could tell that 12 months ago. We owe it to the people of Iraq to follow those WMD into Iran. Don't we still have satellites? Find the WMD, find the truth; then it's all gonna be clear how wrong you dems were. dope

Posted by: mikeinboise on March 21, 2006 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

those WMD we never found? They are in Iran.

Are you sure? I thought they were in Michael Moore's pants.

Posted by: grh on March 21, 2006 at 3:35 AM | PERMALINK

Woe! And -- Woah! Like flies on shit, the deludinoids swarm.

Look, there is no way in hell Al Quaeda is being invited to set up INSIDE Iran.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on March 21, 2006 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK

I understanding they also have a working relationship with the Grays, and are fast developing ties to the ones that look like giant Swedes.

Posted by: The Blue Nomad on March 21, 2006 at 4:23 AM | PERMALINK

Intelligence officials cite Al Qaeda working with Iran, Venezuela, France, Jessica Simpson, and the Los Angeles Angels. Film at 11.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 21, 2006 at 4:59 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, great. Why is the LATimes publishing this bullshit?

Here is another reason to throw the Rubber-Stamp Repub bums out of office so that Dems can thoroughly vet the intelligence and reign in the Incompetent Idiot King.

America doesn't need another war based on faulty intel.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 21, 2006 at 5:21 AM | PERMALINK

OT (forgive me):

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=409557

In a rural, conservative town, Feingold received sustained applause on his censure motion. This area is right-wing -- like militia, Posse Comitatus right-wing.

Just sayin'

Posted by: SombreroFallout on March 21, 2006 at 5:59 AM | PERMALINK

U.S. intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country.

Translation: US intelligence officials are having trouble coming up with any even remotely believable bogus intelligence that would create the impression that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda and furnish the Bush administration with an excuse to bomb the country. But the White House told them to get the flimflam into the media pronto, evidence or no evidence, so they came up with this.

Learn to speak Republicanese! It's the closest foreign language to English.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 21, 2006 at 6:05 AM | PERMALINK

Is Al paid to post here? He seems very devoted.

Posted by: intheknow on March 21, 2006 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINK

I have read that the Iranians have offered to turn over their Al Qaeda to us in return for our handing over the insurgent Iranians in Iraq. We have refused.

Posted by: bob h on March 21, 2006 at 6:48 AM | PERMALINK

"Is Al paid to post here? He seems very devoted."

Probably. Al and Charlie have been stinking up the place for years. Kevin doesn't care. Whenever I want to have a "debate" with a knewjerk Republican bot, I come here. Once a month or two is plenty.

Ask Al about the time he called George Soros (the big jewy Jew international finance guy) a bloodsucker.

Posted by: Al Jr. on March 21, 2006 at 7:38 AM | PERMALINK

Hello,
I found nice site to see peoples from all world.
Faces of countries with poeople's portreaits ;)
It's realy cool ;)

www.areaface.com

Posted by: Bond on March 21, 2006 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

NEW VERSE, SAME AS THE LAST....Can I be the first to say that I don't believe a word of this unless the administration is willing to provide us with some pretty serious backup?

no you can't be first Kevin, because lots and lots of people have been saying that the Bush regime is nothing but a bunch of liars back when you were still supporting the invasion of Iraq.

you can join the parade....just don't try and pretend that you deserve to be leading it....

Posted by: p.lukasiak on March 21, 2006 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

Wouldn't this be like the Pope forging an alliance with Oliver Cromwell? It just doesn't seem believable to me.

Posted by: Red on March 21, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

"Considering the fact that Iran has enough materials to make 10 nuclear bombs, this is a dangerous development which will probably require a military attack of Tehran. Otherwise Al-Qaeda might get their hands on nuclear bombs."

Just one word for Al: Pakistan.

Posted by: Red on March 21, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

People should read the Atlantic Monthly article from about a year ago--we don't have any workable military options in Iran; not with the military we have. Bombing Iran would merely delay the country's acquisition of a nuclear weapon; unite its public behind an unpopular regime; make it absolutely impossible for "moderate" regimes in the Islamic world to cooperate with us; reinforce Europe's, China's and Russia's view that the U.S. is a clumsy and dangerous bull in a China shop (double entendre unintended)--not even the UK would back us in the Security Council; provoke serious Iranian meddling in Iraq (there hasn't been much yet); and send oil to $100/bl. There also seems to be the view that a more "moderate" Iranian regime wouldn't want nuclear weapons; that's phooey, unsupported by any evidence; look at the neighborhood. Contrary to McCain, there IS something worse than an Iran with nuclear weapons--attacking an Iran that won't have them for several years. And then, deterrence should work. The answer is to make very clear to the regime that having nuclear weapons is very dangerous--that they will be on a very, very, very short list of suspects should anything happen here. And that, having acquired those weapons, there will be Israeli boats offshore with "launch on warning" instructions.

Posted by: Matt on March 21, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

Meanwhile, OT, The Chimp is sinking, even in Republican pollster Scott Rassmussen's surveys. From his site yesterday:

President Bush Job Approval

Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval

Strongly Approve 20%
Somewhat Approve 20%
Somewhat Disapprove 15%
Strongly Disapprove 44%

RasmussenReports.com

Bush Job Approval

Monday March 20, 2006--For the third straight day, just 40% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Prior to the past two days, the President's Job Approval had fallen to that level just once in a Rasmussen Reports survey.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove, also matching the worst level of approval for this President.

Just 20% Strongly Approve of the President's performance while 44% Strongly Disapprove.

Posted by: Doofus on March 21, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

I thought Bush said the Al Queda leadership was in Pakistan and Iraq.

Now he says they are in Iran.

They must have one of them new-fangled Star Trek transporter systems!

Let's sign a treaty with them and be friends with them like the Bush 41 administration was friends with the Taliban and Saddam and get that technology!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

CNN.com: Budget constraints are forcing some FBI agents to operate without e-mail accounts, according to the agency's top official in New York.

Yep. $200 billion plus to invade a non-threatening country, Iraq, and cover up Bush's lies.

$500 billion to invade Iran and cover up more lies?

But no money for port security or FBI e-mail.

Gotta love this administration's priorities!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Japan defeats Cuba to win World Baseball Classic

Another Bush administration failure.

Despite continuing debilitating sanctions, that according to conservatives themselves only hurt ordinary people including innocent children not dictators and which therefore are ineffective and immoral, Cuba makes it to the championship game.

Where is the elite US team?

Following in the footsteps of Bush arrogance and incompetence that says: we just have to show up to win.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin and guests, I don't have a lot of time (being at work and all) but I wanted to chime in on this one real quick.
I would not put this past Iran.
To me the jury is still out on whether Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy etc. lied about WMD's and Saddams involvement with Bin Ladden. We now have these new documents which are being pretty mich ignored by the MSM, Video tapes also being ignored by the MSM, The word of an ex-general of Saddams, General Sada, all who seem to indicate that there may have been WMD's and such an alliance with Bin Ladden. Now if you also wish to ignore these things go ahead but as I've said before I listen to all sides and then decide. I don't think George lied then and I don't think he's lying now. I can only link to the General Sada thing right now. I chose this link because it also gives somewhat of a biography of the man.
http://markinmexico.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-is-georges-sada-and-why-should-we.html
If you have an open mind check it out.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

But very unlikely Al Qaeda. Al Q is a sworn enemy of Shi'ite Iran.

I have this vision of Don P. reading this and doing the dog-head-tilt thing.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on March 21, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

We must attack Iran now. They are the reasons for the upsurge in insurgency attacks. They are the reasons our soldiers are having a hard time fighting the war in Iraq. They have the money, brains and arms to fuel terrorism uprising among Iraqi people. They must be attacked now. We have to destroy its government if we are to achieve long lasting peace and democracy in the middle east.

Posted by: Mini Al on March 21, 2006 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

"Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around unless they have some awfully good evidence to share with us."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since there's probably 200-250 million idiots in the country, along with most of Congress, I'd say Bush will ram an invasion of Iran through just as he did with Iraq.

Posted by: steve duncan on March 21, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

If you have an open mind check it out.

I also recommend this site to those of you who may be clinically insane, or morons.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 21, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Total BS...

As practiced by Al Queda in Iraq, Sunni Jihadists HATE Shiites and will stop at nothing to destroy their sect of Islam. They, in fact, likely hate them more than us.

But don't let facts get in the way of a convienient fantasy.

Posted by: Chuck Miller on March 21, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

Routine disclaimers or qualifications such as "Iran is certainly a nasty regime, but..." strike me as due deference to whatever the current acceptable boundaries of discussion or opinion are concerning a given subject. Presently we're all focused on Iran, and of course Iran has been the subject of a concerted campaign of demonization and alienation by various interest groups who would like us to "do something" about Iran. The current acceptable range of opinion on Iran appears to have been largely established by the "do something about Iran" crowd.

So, just for the record, could we have a reminder of just what is it that makes Iran so specially and uniquely "nasty" that we must constantly remind ourselves of that? I can't at this moment think of any single nasty behavior or combination of nasty behaviors that are entirely unique to Iran. We need to be reminded. Anybody care to put together a list of specially nasty attributes about Iran, the country?

Posted by: Doug Bostrom on March 21, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if Iran really is a threat, we've already blown stopping them by having *two* unfinished wars already flapping around and needing their own mopup to avoid further disaster. BTW, that guy who exposed (?) Able Danger says that a source in Iran indicates that Bin Laden has recently died in Iran.

Posted by: !!! on March 21, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

I would not put this past Iran.

I would not put this past the Bush regime to lie about. But Iran is run by Shiite mullahs, while Al Qaeda is an organization of Salafist Sunni fanatics. They hate and despise each other.

To me the jury is still out on whether Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy etc. lied about WMD's and Saddams involvement with Bin Ladden.

No, the jury is not still out. Bush lied. But nice dishonest attempt to conflate Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. with Bush. Bush was president, and those others were only repeating the information he had allowed them to see.

We now have these new documents which are being pretty mich ignored by the MSM, Video tapes also being ignored by the MSM,

Yes, because they're garbage. It's a propaganda drop.

The word of an ex-general of Saddams, General Sada, all who seem to indicate that there may have been WMD's and such an alliance with Bin Ladden.

We've been in complete control (well, relatively speaking) of Iraq for three years. We have most everyone of any importance in the Iraqi regime, including its scientists and technicians, in custody. Any of them would have received a hefty reward and a taxpayer funded retirement in Oahu from us if they'd led us to any WMD, yet they haven't. We've found no labs, no research centers, no factories, no weapons storage, no delivery systems, no papers, no computer programs, no janitor who had to sweep up late at night, nothing, nada. At a certain point, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

Now if you also wish to ignore these things go ahead but as I've said before I listen to all sides and then decide.

It's not enough to credulously weight all sides and decide. You have to consider their credibility, their motives, whether they have lied in the past, what they might have to gain by lying now.

I don't think George lied then and I don't think he's lying now.

That's nice, but it's not true.

I can only link to the General Sada thing right now. I chose this link because it also gives somewhat of a biography of the man.

Again, think what this General Sada's motives might be. The Bush regime desperately wants a war with Iran. Three years after the fall of Saddam Sada pops up and says hey, all those things you want to be true? Er, yeah, they're true all right! Think there might not be a reward in there for him from Bush?

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

There also seems to be the view that a more "moderate" Iranian regime wouldn't want nuclear weapons; that's phooey, unsupported by any evidence; look at the neighborhood.

Very good point. Iran either shares a border with or is very close to nuclear-armed Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and Israel, and is surrounded on three sides by the nuclear-armed United States, which maintains forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf. Frankly, the insane thing for them would be NOT to acquire nuclear weapons -- given the area they live in, and the potential threats they face, it's simple common sense for them to want nuclear weapons.

That doesn't mean that's in our interest for them to acquire them, but there's precious little we can do to stop them, just as we couldn't stop India or Pakistan.

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Our country has unlimited resources that we can use to finance this war.

If you support the military, you have to support this option. There is no such thing, as supporting your military but not supporting this option, for war with Iran. It's treachery, un-patriotic, and it sends the wrong message to our children, it's like saying, "Okay kid, I am going to support you, but I'll let you die because I believe it's wrong to destroy those who wants you dead."

We must attack Iran now.

Posted by: Mini Al on March 21, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

I admit I do find Charlie/Cheney/Karl/Don P. somewhat fascinating -- usually people as insane as Charlie can't function at a high enough day-to-day level to be able to get access to a computer.

I'm sorry, have you ever heard of the Bush Administration?

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

I can't believe that anyone is giving the Bush administration the slightest benefit of the doubt when it comes to Iran. Name one thing that has come out of this bunch that has ever been true?

The latest: Operation Swarm. Described as a massive air assault against the insurgents, in fact not one shot was fired and no insurgents even seen, much less eliminated. A complete farce.

The real question is where are the Democrats? Why are they silent (once again) on the Bush insanity regarding Iran?

Posted by: OtterBill on March 21, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

If we did attack Iran, whose army would we use? The one we have is pretty much played out. Would the Chinese float us a loan to pay for it?

Posted by: slanted tom on March 21, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Word on the street (etc. etc.!) predicts an end-of-May invasion, begun by Israel. The street's the street. But it wouldn't surprise me that were right...

Posted by: PW on March 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

We can't count on the Bush-haters when the going gets tough.

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Why deal with Al Qaeda? If the Iranians wanted to do terrorism they could make up their own group. They could even blame the acts on Al Qaeda. No, this is just propaganda. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been serious problems for the Iranians. As Stefan points out, they hate each other. This is only for the minds of people who are prone to seeing all evil-doers in a grand conspiracy to take over the world.

For anyone who wants to understand why the US is involved in a War on Terror in the Middle East there is an excellent article on the Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard in the London Review of Books . There is a particularly good bit about using charges of anti-semitism to insulate the right-wing from criticism.

The page doesnt load quickly so here is the unedited version.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

And Kevin Drum believes the LA Times?

Posted by: MountainDan on March 21, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: MSM

Anyone who uses this term disparagingly can be safely ignored, especially when so used in comparison to the current administration.

I listen to all sides and then decide.

No, you don't, or you wouldn't be suggesting that just because Bush lied, then Clinton and Kennedy must have lied.

Bush was in the White House in 2003, not Clinton.

Conditions had changed; intelligence had changed; and Clinton was no longer privy to those new conditions and that new intelligence.

Bush hid information from Congress (an established fact beyond dispute now); thus, Kennedy wasn't privy to the information Bush was and cannot be held to the same standard.

I don't think George lied then and I don't think he's lying now.

Because you are willfully blind.

Bush lied on many occasions about many things involving Iraq, including whether we had found WMDs (even a generous consideration of the winnebagos as biological weapons labs doesn't make them WMDs, but only the means to produce WMDs).

Bush willfully hid information from Congress and the public that cast doubt on his description of the alleged threat.

No, you don't listen to all sides and decide.

You are predisposed to believe Bush.

You suffer from BIS.

You will not convince us otherwise with clear and unequivocal blindness to established facts.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, maybe you are the "idiot" here? If I remember correctly the boy who cried wolf too foten met his fate by......wolf. Just becasue Bush has used a number of different reasons to invade Iraq, including the highly inaccurate view that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked does NOT mean that Iran is in fact not trying to forge links to Al Qaeda. The byzantine relationships we all have with each other nowadays is not always so easy to lay out, in a newspaper article, to convince the heavy skeptics. It would appear that we went to war in Iraq for a reason. That reason still stands, as much as Bush has not promoted it. he knows that his own base might not even go for the real reason: Hegemony and empire demanded that we act. Iran, on the other hand, may end up being the war we didn't really want, but came to us anyways. Beware about biasing people against an Al Qaeda connection too early, or we might all end up like the boy who cried wolf.

Posted by: Chris on March 21, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country. Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations. And they suggest that new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forging an alliance with Al Qaeda operatives as a way to expand Iran's influence or, at a minimum, that he is looking the other way as Al Qaeda leaders in his country collaborate with their counterparts elsewhere.

The above passage would actually be accurate if you replace the following four pieces: for "Tehran" substitute "Karachi," for "Iranian" substitute "Pakistani," for "new President Mahmoud Ahmedinijab" substitute "Pervez Musharraf in collaboration with the ISI" and for "Iran" substitute "Pakistan."

See? Now it makes sense!

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

FrequencyKenneth: We can't count on the Bush-haters when the going gets tough.

We can count on Bush-lovers to create conditions that ensure that the going gets tougher than it should be and then deny any responsibility, personal or otherwise, for creating such conditions.

BIS is a serious malady afflicting at least 33-40% of Americans.

Here, we have yet another example of one so afflicted.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

If we did attack Iran, whose army would we use? The one we have is pretty much played out. Would the Chinese float us a loan to pay for it?

I'm sure hundreds of thousands of College Republicans stand ready to answer their nation's call and enlishahahahaha! heeheehee ohahahahahahaah!

I'm sorry, I tried to finish typing that sentence but couldn't stop laughing.

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

As long as we control all three branches of government . . .

Well, if there was any doubt that you were Charlie, the Republican triumphalist, rather than Don P., who claimed not to be a Republican, well, there wouldn't be any more.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 21, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Why deal with Al Qaeda? If the Iranians wanted to do terrorism they could make up their own group.

Well, they already have their own group. It's Hezbollah.

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Close your eyes, cover your ears, and repeat "This is not Vietnam" until the men in white coats take you away.

Remember Cambodia? Sanctuaries? Well, it's GROUNDHOG DAY! Time to do all that over again...

And really, it was fun- when we got to the part where Nixon left office...

Posted by: serial catowner on March 21, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around....

Well, plenty of idiots drop in here regularly.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 21, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

FrequencyKenneth: We can't count on the Bush-haters when the going gets tough.

Yeah, but never fear, because we can always count on the Bushlickers to enlist when the going gets tough.

When are you shipping out, soldier?

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

It's definitely Chuckles, our resident clown. The verbal tics, the personal antagonism directed at me, the homophobia, the inability to do any kind of critical thinking, the inane questions ... it all adds up. Alas, poor Chuckles; he simply cannot stay away. How many "final" farewells has he had now?

Back on topic, if you read the story, there are so many caveats, uncertainties, contradictions, and statements like, ""We don't have any intelligence going on in Iran," that it's pretty clear that this is just more of the same thing we went through with Iraq -- stovepiped intelligence, wishful thinking, war drum beating, and fearmongering.

The rather scary part is that we can't go to war, even if we wanted to, thanks to the Bush administration's stupidity in attacking Iraq. What the hell are they thinking, doing this all over again? And why on earth is the Los Angeles Times carrying a story that quite clearly has so little backing it up? And why on earth is Brad Sherman (D) cooperating in this deja vu experience. Did he learn nothing from the past four years?

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Well, plenty of idiots drop in here regularly.

Don't talk about cmdicely, Stefan, serial catowner, and Advocate for God like that.

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Chuckles!

You forgot your little smirk. ; )

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 21, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, PaulB, would deserve the "idiot" title - let's all see how long it will take for him to say Iran is a "quagmire" as well.

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

I see Kevin Drum is making preparations for the Democrats to go soft on Iran. Just in time for the 2006 elections!

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 21, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK
After Cheney humiliated himself with his pychotic break he couldn't show up under that handle again, so he showed up as "Karl" for a thread or two before being outed and forced to adopt the persona of Don. P. There's no point in responding to a crazed, desperate, attention-seeking person who's vowed to "put us all in Gitmo" etc etc.

It's true that there's no point in responding to Charlie. He is clinically insane.

But I just have to say that his meltdown under the "Cheney" moniker was truly memorable. And his reappearance as "Don P" is just another chapter in a sordid little tale...

Posted by: obscure on March 21, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Congress recently showed they are not averse to raising the debt ceiling. What is it now, something like $8 trillion?

Okay. Take a deep breath and raise it to another even number. Let's see - carry the one and that would be, I know, $10 trillion! Give Ditech a call right now!

Okay, now that that little problem is behind us lets head to Iran. This time around we pay even more mercenaries with our new money. Remember, this is temporary, a short time only, just until the middle east becomes a safe peaceful haven of democratic governments.

I don't see the problem. Iraq - Iran - we're only talking one letter shifted three places. Shoot, it's just a quick hike over the border and there you are!

Posted by: Tripp on March 21, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

" They hate and despise each other."
Good point

"But nice dishonest attempt to conflate Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. with Bush. Bush was president, and those others were only repeating the information he had allowed them to see."
You make these people sound like children sitting at the feet of the story teller. No they believed Saddam has these wmd's because Saddam gave them every reason to believe it. Blocking inspectors for suspicious amounts of time and then relenting. Same reason Clinton bombed a WMD facility. Musta been there if he bombed it. I don't see how, then Gov. Bush got him to do that.

"Yes, because they're garbage. It's a propaganda drop."
Perhaps but that is yet to be seen. Until then to an open mind this is food for thought.

"no janitor who had to sweep up late at night, nothing, nada."
Yeah, true but then the bodies in Saddams mass graves were not available for comment. Oh and that's spelled "Sada". (Ha! fun pun :)

"Three years after the fall of Saddam Sada pops up and says hey"
I don't think it was three years. I imagine it took a little while to write his book but then in his case I could see where he might want to lay low for a while.

*shrug* Like I say, Just food for thought. Not trying to be "dishonest". I'm just discussin over here.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum and the Loony left think this is all about "Bush Lied People Died!"

Get a grip.

This isn't about Bush. It's about a reckless regime on the verge of having nuclear weapons. The leaders of this regime have publicly said Israel should be "destroyed."

I am serious - the pathetic losers who think this is all about Bush (Kevin Drum) need to get therapy.

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 21, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

"I'm sure hundreds of thousands of College Republicans stand ready to answer their nation's call and enlishahahahaha"

The CR's (and the trolls on this site) are doing their part by supporting more war back here at home and calling anyone with common sense a traitor.

Posted by: brewmn on March 21, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

FrequencyKenneth writes: This isn't about Bush. It's about a reckless regime

I thought you said it wasn't about Bush.

...on the verge of having nuclear weapons.

Yes, and there has never been a US President that caused greater harm to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation than George W. Bush. He's made the world a much more dangerous place, and has increased the numbers and power of our enemies.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on March 21, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

The president is holding a press conference.

Oh, the pain.

Posted by: Lucy on March 21, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

I see Kevin Drum is making preparations for the Democrats to go soft on Iran. Just in time for the 2006 elections!

How about those Repubs who went limp on investigating Iraq prewar intel? That should interest some 2006 voters, a majority who think Bush deliberately misled us.

Rubber-Stamp Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) hasn't done his job of intel oversight unless coverup has been the goal. He's stonewalled Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) to find out how the Iraq intel was used or misused.

Two federal government investigations have been conducted so far: one by the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence, and one by a commission appointed by President Bush (the Silverman-Robb Commission). Unfortunately, neither were independent investigations and both were severely limited in their mandate. The Senates investigation, led by Republican Senator Roberts, was designed to consist of two phases. As Senators Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin explained in their Additional Views to the report following the first phase of the investigation, the central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports was relegated to the second phase of the Committees investigation, along with other issues related to the activities of Pentagon policy officials, pre-war intelligence assessments of post-war Iraq, and the role played by the Iraqi National Congress. (7/7/04) Two-and-a-half years after the war began, the Phase II investigation has not been completed. The Silverman-Robb Commission, whose members were appointed by President Bush without bipartisan consultation, was also limited in its mandate. As the Commission expressly noted in its final report, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. [Emphasis added. Cite]
Now we've passed the third anniversary of invading Iraq. Until Harry Reid (D-NV) invoked Senate Rule 21 to push the war probe on Nov. 1, 2005, Phase II had been MIA. Isn't it still? But there's only so much the minority party can do (go to the DPC website to read more) without subpoena power and with the Rubber-Stamp Repub obstructionists in charge. Of course, we would like Dems to do a hell of a lot more, dammit!

The SCLM hasn't criticized the lack of Repub oversight with as much vigor as they have in spreading the misleading propaganda of the president. They don't call Dubya out on when he deflects his administration's accountability with Bushwacko-isms. Only a few voices in the MSM have pointed out that the Administration tinkers with truth and rebutted the WH falsehood that Dems had access to the same intel as the president before they "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

How can Bush say on Nov. 11, 2005:

These [Democrats and anti-war] critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
[Cite, President Commemorates Veterans Day, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania]
...when Phase II of the SSCI investigation had not concluded? How can Rubber-Stamp Kitt Bond (R-MO) say the same thing on Nov. 2, 2005? Checking back with Senate leaders wasn't due until Nov. 14, 2005, as a result of the Nov. 1 secret session.

Where is the final Phase II SSCI report? Has anybody seen it? Has it gone missing with Osama bin Laden?

As far as I can tell, we're still waiting for the truth about Administration misuse of Iraq intel and Rubber-Stamp Repubs don't have the balls to reveal it because, IMO, the whole story would show that their national security creds are a fraud.

Don't hold your breath waiting. You'll need it if Dubya uses force against Iran based on cherry-picked intel off another Chinese menu.


Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 21, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Dear little Donnie, just as cute as a button, writes: "Of course, PaulB, would deserve the 'idiot' title - let's all see how long it will take for him to say Iran is a 'quagmire' as well."

Whatever you say, Donnie, dear. Would you like to talk about my "radioactive (and who knows what other filthy diseased) ass" again, Donnie? It seems to hold some sort of fascination for you.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

obscure wrote: "But I just have to say that his meltdown under the 'Cheney' moniker was truly memorable"

I missed that. Any links? I love Chuckles' meltdowns, particularly the ones where he goes into full drama queen mode, slamming the door, stomping his widdle feet, and vowing to never return again.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

I predict we will begin the invasion of Iran in the Spring of 2007.

Posted by: E. Nonee Moose on March 21, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

FK sez

(Kevin Drum) needs to get therapy.

Bwahahahahahahahaha OUCH!

Warn me the next time you peg my irony meter, okay? The needle slammed the stop so hard it made my dog jump.

Posted by: Tripp on March 21, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

You make these people sound like children sitting at the feet of the story teller.

No, I'm making them sound like United States Senators choosing to believe what the President, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, has told them about a supposed threat to their country. Yes, they were wrong to believe Bush, but isn't the onus more on the person who lied than on the person who believed the lie?

No they believed Saddam has these wmd's because Saddam gave them every reason to believe it. Blocking inspectors for suspicious amounts of time and then relenting.

But then he did relent, and he did let inspectors in, and they found nothing. No matter what Saddam pretended to have, no matter what people chose to pretend he have, the physical evidence turned up by the UN team turned up nothing.

Same reason Clinton bombed a WMD facility. Musta been there if he bombed it. I don't see how, then Gov. Bush got him to do that.

Well yes, but the fact that Clinton destroyed a suspected weapons facility in 1998 didn't mean that it was still there in 2003. Over five years the situation and what we knew about it changed. The UN weapons inspectors in 2003 revealed that there were not, in fact, any such sites left.

Remember, too, that it was Bush, not Clinton, who claimed that the danger was so great that we had to invade right now, rightaway, not a moment to lose! Clinton never claimed that we had to invade Iraq, Clinton never invaded Iraq -- Bush did. While others thought that Saddam might have some prohibited weapons in the form of chemical or biological agents, only Bush and his enablers claimed that Saddam had nuclear weapons, which was a lie.

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

It is somewhat amusing to read the Bush haters cite their hate of Bush as the rationale for not believing the air-tight intelligence about Iran's terroristic tendencies.

You guys are stuck in a self-referential loop, unable to extricate yourself from the intellectual morass of your own making.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 21, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

AFG: MSM...Anyone who uses this term disparagingly can be safely ignored...

Why? They do suck, though not for the reasons delineated by this crowd of troglodyte trolls.

obscure: You've made a couple of references to the Cheney meltdown. Do those of us who've been away a big entertainment favor and point us to the hilarity, huh? Thanks.

Lurker, Paddy, Kenneth, Chris, etc. (which reminds me...how funny that Jay has resurfaced under another name after being outed as a pedophilia defender yesterday): You boys really have no idea how much damage Bushco did to itself (America, the world, and so on) by lying about Iraq, do you? There's a boy who cried wolf, for sure, and it ain't Kevin. Watching you go into hysterics and stamp your little feet because the rest of the country and world don't share your bottomless credibility...priceless!

Posted by: shortstop on March 21, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

FrequencyKenneth wrote: "Kevin Drum and the Loony left think this is all about 'Bush Lied People Died!'"

No, we think it's about an administration that quite clearly did lie about and exaggerate the threat in Iraq, taking us into a misguided and extremely costly war that has damaged our country, our security, and our military, for years to come, if not decades. And it's about seeing precisely the same behavior again with respect to Iran.

"Get a grip."

We have one, which is why we're not going to get fooled again. And we're definitely not going to let ourselves get panicked by unwarranted fearmongering. You, and those like you, may choose to live your lives in fear. I'll take another road.

"This isn't about Bush."

Yes, actually, it is. The reports are coming from the Bush administration, an administration that has already shown that it cannot be trusted. And the reports that we have seen thus far, including this article, have so little substance behind them that it is quite clear that they cannot be taken seriously.

"It's about a reckless regime on the verge of having nuclear weapons."

And you know the extent of the "reckless[ness]," that they are bent on achieving nuclear weapons, and just how close they are to this goal, how, exactly? A free clue: you "know" this because the Bush administration told you. You have chosen to place your faith in this administration, to accept whatever propaganda it feeds you, unthinking and unquestioning. That is your prerogative. For me, as I said, I'll take another road.

"The leaders of this regime have publicly said Israel should be 'destroyed.'"

Yes, they have; so have quite a few other leaders in the Middle East. Did you have a point to make?

"I am serious - the pathetic losers who think this is all about Bush (Kevin Drum) need to get therapy."

Dear, have you taken a good look in the mirror lately?

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: You make these people sound like children sitting at the feet of the story teller.

No, I make them sound like members of Congress who are dependent on the Executive Branch for intelligence information and analysis.

GIGO. If you are given garbage intelligence, you will come to wrong conclusions.

This is so whether it be because of intelligence agency failures or administration mendacity or both.

In this case, it was both.

Moreover, in the case of Democrats, they had no ability whatsoever to control the information being received from the White House and conservatives have consistently opined that they have no right to such power as the minority party and, thus, are required by that minority status to rely on the administration and GOP leaders in Congress for their information.

Now, all of a sudden all those conservatives who insisted that the Dems owned no power because of their minority status, a status further eroded by corrupt manipulation of the existing rules of Congress (in ways or to the extent never done by Democrats when they were the majority), are shocked, shocked that the Dems didn't use their "minority powers" (the very ones that conservatives were denying the existence of) to "force" the administration to come clean before every vote.

Hardee har har.

BIS - A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Get treatment.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Iran's 'regime' is a lot less nasty than America's regime. Mr. Drum succumbs to the Bush war rhetoric when he demeans Iran. Iran has not invaded another country since the revolution. Iran is not holding people as less than human beings, like the US does by calling people non-combatants. Iran, unlike the US, actually has enemies plotting to overthrow its government and install puppets - in order to seize its natural resources.

The report of Iran allying with al Qaeda is simply a lie. A lie told by the Bush regime and repeated by its propaganda machine: MSM.

Posted by: Hostile on March 21, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

This is a tough one:

1. That Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, including against the U.S. is undisputed. See its collaboration with Hezbollah on Khobar Towers.

2. That some al quaeda members are in Iran and that others have been allowed to transit Iran is also not in dispute. This was also true of Iraq under Hussein. What is in dispute is Iran's active complicity in al quaeda actions (i.e. steps further than turning a blind eye to the enemy of my enemy)...this was also true of Iraq.

Personally, I question Iran being actively complicit..if only because support for Hamas and avoiding a U.S. attack on their nuclear facilities seems to be more on their front burner.

How is Iran different than Pakistan? Well, last time I checked, al quaeda was attempting to kill Musharaff...not work with him (of course how much control he has over the ISI is another question altogether). Of course, if Musharaff dies or loses power......

Posted by: Nathan on March 21, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

It is somewhat amusing to read the Bush worshippers cite their enduring love of Bush as the rationale for believing this Administration's claim that Iran threatens the US.

You guys are stuck in a self-referential loop, unable to extricate yourself from the intellectual morass of your own making.

Posted by: Joel on March 21, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Fake tbrosz wrote: "It is somewhat amusing to read the Bush haters cite their hate of Bush as the rationale for not believing the air-tight intelligence about Iran's terroristic tendencies."

The shtick is kinda getting old. Can you give it a rest? Tbrosz parodies himself quite well now; he doesn't need any additional help from you.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

No arguments based on logic can stop these guys.

Unless the Dem leaders start shouting the truth about the mendacity and immorality of George W. Bush nothing is going to change.

Posted by: lib on March 21, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: Same reason Clinton bombed a WMD facility.

More mendacity on your part.

The existence of WMD programs changed as the result of sanctions and Clinton attacks on WMD facilities.

Simply because those facilities existed when Clinton was president is not even evidence, much less proof, that they existed in 2003, especially since Clinton destroyed some known facilities and at the very least the UN inspectors verified in 2003 no active programs or existing stockpiles.

This continued insistence that conditions in 1998-2000 were mirrored in 2003, despite actions being taken to change those conditions, is beyond pathetic, it is outright looney and rabidly dishonest.

But, hey, if we're going to use that logic, then Pakistan under Musharraf was supporting radical Islamic groups in 1998-2000, so he must still be doing so and we shouldn't be giving him military aid which he can divert to these groups that he must continue to support according to Lurker-logic.

And Dubai allowed money to flow to the perpetrators of 9/11, so they must be considered enemies - we cannot take into account any changes in conditions that have occurred since then, the so-called tightening of control over funds in Dubai, to determine otherwise - all things must be frozen in time, specifically the conditions that existed in 1998-2000.

Lurker logic.

Or rather illogic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Some idiot above said "America's regime is alot less nasty than Iran's regime."

It is astonishing how morally confused today's Democrats are.

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 21, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "This is a tough one:"

Not really. Not yet, anyway.

"1. That Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, including against the U.S. is undisputed. See its collaboration with Hezbollah on Khobar Towers."

That damn near every regime in the Middle East has sponsored or supported terrorism in one way or another is also undisputed. See the annual State Department reports. Some of those countries are even our nominal allies.

"2. That some al quaeda members are in Iran and that others have been allowed to transit Iran is also not in dispute."

That the same could be said of every other Middle East country, including our allies, is also not in dispute.

"This was also true of Iraq under Hussein."

Yup, and we've seen just how little true cooperation and collaboration existed between al Qaeda and Hussein.

"What is in dispute is Iran's active complicity in al quaeda actions (i.e. steps further than turning a blind eye to the enemy of my enemy)...this was also true of Iraq."

It's not even really in dispute, since the Bush administration has openly admitted that it has no real knowledge to bring to the table. It's all speculation and hearsay.

"Personally, I question Iran being actively complicit..if only because support for Hamas and avoiding a U.S. attack on their nuclear facilities seems to be more on their front burner."

Not to mention the lack of any concrete information. Absent such information, and given the track record of the Bush administration, it seems pretty clear that there is, at present, nothing to see.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop: Why? They do suck, though not for the reasons delineated by this crowd of troglodyte trolls.

No, it's because "MSM" is a right-wing term of derogation that implies that American journalists are lock-step liberals who report as they do because they hate Bush.

Pffttttttt!

If you want to criticize American journalism and news organizations, fine by me. They deserve it.

But using "MSM" either paints you as a knee-jerk right-wing idiot or a conservative meme enabler.

But heck, why not enable conservative memes further by always referring to the insurgents as "desperate"?

Use right-wing terms of derogation and you enable their message and give their message validity for all the reasons they pose, not for the reasons you do.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK
The rather scary part is that we can't go to war, even if we wanted to, thanks to the Bush administration's stupidity in attacking Iraq.

We clearly shouldn't go to war with Iran (even ignoring the absence of cause), lacking the capacity to be confident of prosecuting such a war effectively, and given the additional threat it would expose us to in, e.g., Iraq.

But that doesn't mean we can't start one, or even that this administration won't, it just means we shouldn't.

It's important to note the distinction, here, because "can't" suggests that, while the Administration is nuts to talk about it, there is no real risk of it actually happening, which is not the case.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 21, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Wow - I stopped by to see if AIPAC still pulled the strings of progressive blogs.

We will not free ourselves from the tyranny of the Bush administration UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SAME JEWS WHO CONTROL BUSH - control leftist blogs.

Iran is the new target [ for treasonous American Jews ] - so there can be no disucssion

frequency Kenneth is the resident Jew this morning.... making sure the lefties don't open their eyes.

Read Raimondo this morning over at antiwar.com for a wake up call....

IT's the JEWS Stupid!

they will have us nuking Iran and Syria if we don't out them as agents of a foreign government.

Your Jewish neighbor is NOT on YOUR side in this... they are fine watching YOUR kids go off to die in THEIR wars.

Your tax dollars, and YOUR children mean NOTHING to the Jews of these boards.

The left and right are totally co-opted by agents of Israel, posing as Americans.

Read the new Harvard study on Jews controlling both parties and our media.

Posted by: Kathy on March 21, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

KennethInfrequency: It is astonishing how morally confused today's Democrats are.

I suppose it would be if it were true in the ways you suggest, but it's not.

What is true, however, is the astonishingly unconfused immorality
of today's conservative.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

AFG: But using "MSM" either paints you as a knee-jerk right-wing idiot or a conservative meme enabler.

Hmmm, I hear normal, progressive people use this term (disparagingly) all the time.

Posted by: shortstop on March 21, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Um, Kevin, the title should be something like:

"Second verse, same as the first"

"New verse, same as the last" has nothing to do with the Herman's Hermits rendition.

Posted by: raj on March 21, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Ok Stefan, whatever.
You see a congress as a bunch of idiots being led around by the nose by a lying prez.
I see a collection of people who all initialy believed the same thing based on Saddams actions. I believe it was Saddam who was the liar but *shrug* that won't further your agenda.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Oh and one last thing. My original post was directed to those with open minds so I wasn't even talking to you.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around unless they have some awfully good evidence to share with us.

Then we are all screwed, as at least 52% of us are indeed idiots for having re-elected a mendacious President.

Posted by: lib on March 21, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Point taken, cmdicely. I was using "can't" in the sense that we lack the capacity to launch a new war against Iran and that, from a military and security standpoint, such a move would almost certainly be a disaster. You are sadly correct that this would not necessarily stop the Bush administration.

Lurker42, since you quite clearly do not have an open mind, why the insistence that you are only posting for those who do?

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

It is heavily agreed that it will take Iran, if it is indeed trying, ten years from now to achieve a nuclear weapon. So what is Bush's motive? Look over there?

Give it up, you loonies. As was said to you all night, there is no way that Fundamentalist Sunnis are in bed with Fundamentalist Shi'as, even to combine in persuading the US to spend its way to oblivion.

This is from the Independent of yesterday: "The march of folly, that has led to a bloodbath.
'For this was to be an ideological war. From its creation by the loonies
of the American right - as a pro-Israel policy to aid the Likud leader
Benjamin Netanyahu - and then foisted on Bush, to the hell-disaster that
Iraq now represents, the real war had to be turned into a myth; nightmares
into dreams; destruction into hope; terrible truths into profound
mendacity'."

the same lobby, led by yhe PNAC, is pressing for an attack upon Iran.

It is time that the US understood that Israel's interests arwe not the US's. This in turn means that the enormous numbers of Jewish Americans who do not agree either with Zionism/Israel, or who understand that the US's interests are diametrically opposed to Israel's, must stand up and declare where lies there first loyalty and shout down the Israel-centric moles.

Read Antiwar.com of yesterday. It is all there. It is time to show where your loyalty lies, guys!
What price on there being a deep Semitic Plot --- both Arab and Jew together to render the US broke? Seems to be working, with GWB/Cheney too dumb to see they are being led by the nose!

Posted by: maunga on March 21, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, here is the thread with the Cheney/Chuckles/Charlie/Don P meltdown. Although I suppose it could be just another one of the fakes we get around here.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Oh great, now the bigots in the Democratic party are blaming the Jews.

Sheeesh.

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 21, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

You see a congress as a bunch of idiots being led around by the nose by a lying prez.
I see a collection of people who all initialy believed the same thing based on Saddams actions.

Again, no, I see the President as the executive, in charge of the intelligence gathering functions of the government. The President gets direct intelligence from the CIA, NSA, military, etc. The Congress, which has no independent intelligence gathering operatus of its own, is almost completely dependent on the executive to give it accurate information. If the President does not, they have no way to check it except by waiting for events to play out.

I believe it was Saddam who was the liar but *shrug* that won't further your agenda.

Of course Saddam was lying. He was bluffing us, bluffing the Iranians, bluffing his internal opposition, building himself up so his enemies would think he was too powerful to take on. But the fact that Saddam was lying doesn't negate the fact that Bush was as well.

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

"Lurker42, since you quite clearly do not have an open mind, why the insistence that you are only posting for those who do?"

How's that? I agreed with him on one point. He may very well BE right. *shrug* He gave me no reason to believe it though. All he said is "Bush lied", "Bush lied", "Bush lied". All I was saying is maybe he didn't. So again, How do you figure?

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

FrequencyKenneth wrote: "Oh great, now the bigots in the Democratic party are blaming the Jews."

ROFL... My goodness, but you really don't know how to use your brain, do you?

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

IT's the JEWS Stupid!

Now, that's scary.

Lurker42: I believe it was Saddam who was the liar but *shrug* that won't further your agenda.

And, of course, there can't be more than one liar, the conclusion implicit in the above statement.

More than one liar wouldn't further Lurker's agenda to, regardless of the facts, defend Bush on the decision to invade Iraq.

You see a congress as a bunch of idiots being led around by the nose by a lying prez.

No, we simply see a group of people that must rely on the executive for intelligence information, because they have no resources for collecting their own intelligence, some of whom have no current power to invoke any power Congress may have over the executive.

You can continue to consistently and repeatedly mischaracterize what we "see", ut that doesn't make your characterization true.

It does prove your intellectual dishonesty and lack of objectivity.

An objective person would not need to lie about what other debaters are writing and would not need to create strawmen to "prove" his point.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: All I was saying is maybe he didn't.

There is proof that Bush, or his agents for whom he is responsible, have lied about the intelligence about Iraq and withheld information (lied through omission).

Saying maybe he didn't simply paints you as in denial, not objective.

"Maybe the sun isn't hot" is not objective.

Neither is "maybe Bush lied".

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: My original post was directed to those with open minds so I wasn't even talking to you.

You are clearly unclear about what "open mind" means, so I have grave doubts you were directing anything to anyone with such a mind.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

PaulB:

"That damn near every regime in the Middle East has sponsored or supported terrorism in one way or another is also undisputed. See the annual State Department reports. Some of those countries are even our nominal allies."

well...the part you missed was that Iran directly planned and abetted an attack against U.S. citizens...that does differentiate it a bit. (what I do think we should have done is directly retaliate against Iran at the time.)

with that said, that was also sometime ago. of course, Iran also had a nominally more favorable to the U.S. regime in place at the time.

what I did wonder at the time of the Iraq invasion was whether we were invading the wrong country...I still do.

Posted by: Nathan on March 21, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "well...the part you missed was that Iran directly planned and abetted an attack against U.S. citizens...that does differentiate it a bit."

If verified and substantiated, you would have a point. The last time I checked, it was not.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

I read an article the other day that said the Bush admin is going to nuke Iran because Iran is plotting a worldwide bird flu epidemic.

Migration season begins in April. Fear the pigeons.

Posted by: erica on March 21, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

That Cheney "meltdown" (thanks for the link, Paul) was no meltdown. Christ, he can't even fake a temper tantrum well. Is there nothing he can do?

This just reinforces my theory that "Charlie" is a committed troll who fashioned a fake persona for himself (likely using a real person's name and job), then discarded it when it no longer got much attention. Now, he'll say anything, using anyone's handle, as long as it disrupts the thread...his sole goal. There may also be a couple or more people doing it, although the linguistic tics indicate that it's primarily one guy.

But I agree with whomever said that the guy is batshit crazy. Pure, uncut insanity.

Posted by: shortstop on March 21, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "what I did wonder at the time of the Iraq invasion was whether we were invading the wrong country...I still do."

No disagreement on this point. The attack on Iraq never did make much sense, since you could make a far stronger case for attacks on, e.g., North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, just to name a few. Now whether any of those attacks would actually make sense is a whole 'nother discussion.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan: well...the part you missed was that Iran directly planned and abetted an attack against U.S. citizens...that does differentiate it a bit.

You must have missed the part where the US directly planned and abetted an attack against Iraq.

Or the part where the US sponsored a vicious dictator, the Shah, who suppressed, murdered, and tortured his people.

Or the part where the US sponsored a vicious dictator, Saddam, who suppressed, murdered, and tortured not only his own people, but many Iranians, including using WMDs on them with the consent and protection of the US.

Gee, the Iranians had no reason at all to attack the US.

Hmmmm. You are suggesting we retaliate against Iran for attacking us, but they are immoral for retaliating against us for attacking them, albeit through proxies like Saddam.

Damn, can't you just smell the rank hypocrisy!

How many Iranian deaths do you think America is responsible for through its support of the Shah and Saddam?

Do you really think the deaths caused by Iranian-sponsored terrorism even remotely approaches the deaths caused by US-sponsored terrorism, even if we just consider the resulting Iranian deaths alone?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB:

True. NK was never an option because of Seoul's location. a couple thousand artillery pieces pointed directly at Seoul...
but NK's penchant for selling things for hard cash makes it the most worrisome threat on the planet in my book.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cooperate at least part of the time....al quaeda hates their governments as much as it hates us. (their populace is, of course, a separate matter.)

both Iraq and Iran (Libya's been quiet since the 80's and has apparently actually cooperated since 9/11 on intelligence matters) have sponsored terrorist actions against U.S. citizens (sponsorship as opposed to small scale abetting of al quaeda is, of course, a separate question)
but Iraq was constrained in ways that Iran was not...and the Iranian nuclear program is active (which Iraq's wasn't since the mid-90's) -- estimates as to how far Iran is from a nuke vary widely...from 2 to 10 years (there appears to be a legitimate dispute on that subject)...for these reasons...there was certainly a stronger case against Iran than Iraq.

Posted by: Nathan on March 21, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB:

as for Iran's complicity in Khobar Towers...you might find the following of interest:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/21/khobar.indictments/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html
http://www.afa.org/magazine/nov2005/1105edit.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing

Posted by: Nathan on March 21, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

"paints you as in denial, not objective."

HAHAHAHA!! Ok Dr. AFG. Thank you I feel much better now.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Carefgul, here, Guys, about our being justified if a 'terrist act" has been committed against the US!.

Is spying on the US a "terrist act"????? I think i may have heard Shrub it is so. If it is, there is a country front and center right now, with one of its fellow-travellers who has pleaded guilty and two to go! ..... You know, Jonathon Jason Pollard's pals.

Posted by: maunga on March 21, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

It could be that the Iran propaganda campaign is merely intended to help in the upcoming election. Which makes it necessary to undermine the administration's credibility immediately.

John Stewart did a great piece on the Daily Show last week, where they showed Bush saying that IED's had parts made in Iran. Then they ran a clip where an audience member asked the General with him if they had any evidence to back that up, to which he replied, "Ah, er, no"

Even better is to pick apart the weasel wording. So what if there are parts made in Iran! Probably some of the other parts were made in America or China! Or England! or maybe France! Let's invade France! IED's are made from whatever folks can buy in the store.

This is so weak its unbelievable.

Furthermore, countering this propaganda can't and shouldn't be left to politicians.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on March 21, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: Thank you I feel much better now.

You are welcome for the intervention.

But recognizing the problem is not enough.

You must seek out other help, from a competent psychotherapist.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "as for Iran's complicity in Khobar Towers...you might find the following of interest:"

I've read most of those, Nathan. I know we think that elements of the Iranian government were involved, but from what I've seen, we have no real proof, which is why no Iranian official has, as yet, been indicted in the matter. And even from people who are convinced that Iran was directly involved, there is disagreement about whether it was an offically-sanctioned operation or whether it was nothing but a few rogue elements that were involved.

I'm not making any counter-claims about Iranian involvement or lack thereof; I'm simply pointing out that the evidence is not as strong or as clear-cut as I think you implied.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

A few comments:

-- Reports from Iraqis describe Zarqawi heading for refuge in the border area with Iran, or into Iran proper. It's not impossible that there would be enclaves there. Same for Syria.

-- Even if that were true, this is not proof of Iranian government cooperation with al Qaeda, any more than the terror bases in northern Iraq were proof of Saddam's cooperation, or al Qaeda enclaves in western Pakistan are proof of collaberation with that government. This is where more intelligence is needed.

-- I found the lack of on-the-ground intelligence resources in Iran to be the most disturbing part of the article. This was a major weakness in Iraq, too. One hopes Israel is doing better.

-- I can think of no conceivable set of evidence that would convince the hardliners here that military action would be necessary against Iran, so the arguments are kind of moot anyway.

Iranian representatives to the United Nations did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment.

I always get a kick out that kind of sentence. Like Iran is going to say, "Well, damn, I guess you caught us flat-footed with your incisive questioning on whether or not we are cooperating with terrorists. You're right. We are."

Posted by: tbrosz on March 21, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: I can think of no conceivable set of evidence that would convince the hardliners here that military action would be necessary against Iran, so the arguments are kind of moot anyway.

Relative to the evidence available (or dispositive against invasion) on Iraq, not to mention that Powell had proclaimed Iraq a non-threat, the evidence on Iran and its level of threat is overwhelming.

So, the you're saying the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes, abandoned arrogance, and embraced reason, despite equally overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Well, let's hope you are right.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Why can't we have columnists who can speak the truth like this?


"I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional. To the extent that he does not, he is an actor whose first invention himself has been his only interesting role. "


Posted by: lib on March 21, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK
I can think of no conceivable set of evidence that would convince the hardliners here that military action would be necessary against Iran, so the arguments are kind of moot anyway.

Your inability to think does not make any kind of arguments "moot".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 21, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around unless they have some awfully good evidence to share with us."

You know, that tale about the boy who cried "wolf" is coming to my mind, and if the wolf is really there, this time, WE'RE THE SHEEP, DAMN IT!

Think about it. One of these days, they'll try this trick and a real wolf will be at the door, with no one left to kill it, since the earlier tricks will have used up all the fighting strength, money, will, and money. Al Qaeda's goal of bankrupting us will have been met, and bingo! it's bye-bye-baby for us.

Great will be the fall of this house, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be heard by our enemies to their extreme satisfaction. Repent now, and straighten our nation's course, lest we be driven onto the shoals and the ship of state be scuttled.

Ed

Posted by: Ed Drone on March 21, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz wrote: "I can think of no conceivable set of evidence that would convince the hardliners here that military action would be necessary against Iran,"

Well, that's mostly because you have turned off your brain and reverted to mindless partisanship -- a not uncommon action for you on this blog. Give us the proof (proof that was notably lacking in Iraq and that is not as yet present in Iran) and you will get a hearing. Omit that proof and expect us to take the Bush administration's word on faith and you will indeed get pushback. Why would you expect otherwise?

"so the arguments are kind of moot anyway."

Only to the extent that the arguments are, as we've seen from the stories, speculative and unsupported, not to mention being from an administration that has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted in these matters.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

The only people Al Qaeda types hate more than Americans are Shiites, so the idea that there is co-operation between them is absurd on its face.

Surely the American people aren't stupid enough to fall the same lies again?!

Posted by: A Hermit on March 21, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps had they invaded Afghanistan with enough troops in the first place, they could have stationed hundreds of thousands at the borders, and prevented the escape of these dangerous al Qaeda terrorists into neighboring countries.

If there are Al Qaeda in Iran or Pakistan:
IT IS GEORGE FUCKING DUBYA'S FAULT.

He should be removed from office before someone gets hurt.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on March 21, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

The most heinous acts of terrorism being conducted today in Iraq have been carried out by so-called "takfiris" (excommunicators), people who declare that Shiites as well as those Sunnis who don't agree with them are apostates, marked for death by Islamic law. These people hate Shiites with a passion. Iran is ruled by Shiite clergy.

It is simply nonsense to claim that the Iranians are somehow allied with a bunch of people who would like to kill all the Shiites.

Posted by: Joe Buck on March 21, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

"If I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there. I wouldn't put those kids there," Bush said at a White House news conference.

Biggest load of BS yet from the prez.

Bush would sacrifice 10,000 kids just to boost his poll numbers and get tax cuts for his buddies.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

A Hermit wrote: "Surely the American people aren't stupid enough to fall the same lies again?!"

I think it's safe to say that 30-40% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, will be quite willing to climb on board again. Just look at some of our regular trolls here. Whether they can get any higher percentage than that depends on a variety of factors, including the compliance of the national media, the behavior of the Democratic Party, and the caliber of evidence presented.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

"You must seek out other help, from a competent psychotherapist."

Glad to hear you admit that you aren't one. It is quite obvious to me that you wouldn't know denial if it bit you.(and I don't mean de river in egypt)

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Levin: "Those who are negotiating a new government, it seems to me, have now got to put into their calculus that there's a understandable expectation on the part of the American people that the dawdling will end. There's been too much dawdling while Baghdad is burning, too much debating while Iraq is in turmoil."

Unfortunately, Levin should be talking about the dawdling of the Bush administration when it came to body armor, vehicle armor, training, manpower, Iran, North Korea, global warming, and the deficit, to name just a few issues on which Bush has dropped the ball.

Bush, The Fumbler.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Army officer guilty of Abu Ghraib abuse

Another scapegoat has his career and honor destroyed to protect Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush from their crimes against humanity.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: It is quite obvious to me that you wouldn't know denial if it bit you.

And it's quite obvious you would know neither objectivity nor truth if either bit you.

Since it requires no medical license or degree to identify either of those concepts or conditions, I'll consider myself to be in the better position here.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB, thanks for finding Cheney's meltdown.

(Btw, how did you do it?!)

Posted by: obscure on March 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

A Hermit:

not all al-quaeda members are Sunni...some are even Shiite....as are some groups who have directly cooperated with al-quaeda.

OBF says:
"Perhaps had they invaded Afghanistan with enough troops in the first place, they could have stationed hundreds of thousands at the borders, and prevented the escape of these dangerous al Qaeda terrorists into neighboring countries."

This was simply impossible for logistical and geographic reasons. This doesn't change the fact that Franks' decision at Tora Bora was mistaken.

Posted by: Nathan on March 21, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

I can think of no conceivable set of evidence that would convince the hardliners here that military action would be necessary against Iran, so the arguments are kind of moot anyway.

I thought evidence was the bailiwick of the reality-based community...

Posted by: obscure on March 21, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

"And it's quite obvious you would know neither objectivity nor truth if either bit you."

You would be mistaken...again. But that's ok. We're all allowed to be wrong. You included.
Just because I present an opposing argument as a possibility doesn't mean that I'm not objective. Your assertion would actualy show YOU as the one not exercising objectivity.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Any evidence Iran ever used deadly force against Americans in America?

No. Iran uses deadly force against Americans who invade and occupy other Middle Eastern nations while serving elitist imperialists, who do not represent the the American people.

American leaders want Iranian oil for the large energy corporations to sell at monopoly prices, so they demonize Iran and hope some of the lies resonate with the electorate, who are unconsciously guilty for all of the imperialist killing done in their name. In order to further bury their guilt, Americans turn to war in order to eliminate the player who most symbolizes their murderous behavior. Since the US is very guilty in this regard to Iran, it should not be surprising Americans want to eliminate this glaring victim of US aggression.

Posted by: Hostile on March 21, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: Just because I present an opposing argument as a possibility doesn't mean that I'm not objective.

An opposing argument refuted by known and objective fact is not a possibility any more than proffering the opposing argument that the sun is not hot is a possibility.

If it is, however, then nothing can ever be known with sufficient certainty to label it as fact and you are arguing that you are right from the perspective of no fact or opinion can ever be proven wrong.

And it such is the case, your input and comments are reduced to worthless.

We're all allowed to be wrong.

Apparently, you don't allow yourself that luxury.

Pretty much like Bush.

No wonder you find no fault in his decision to invade Iraq.

Birds of an arrogant feather flock together.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile,
Although oil is certainly important, I dont think it was the main motivator for the war in Iraq. Blood for oil and naked neoimperialism, I think, are the junior motivators in this war. The principle architects of the regional strategy and the lobbyists were not oil executives but right-wing pro-Israel groups (see my link up thread). Syria and Iran do not make sense in terms of controlling oil. Syria is not oil-rich and no one is going to invade and occupy Iran to get the oil.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 21, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around unless they have some awfully good evidence to share with us.

So where is tbrosz, anyway?

Posted by: a fundie's fundamentalist on March 21, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

obscure wrote: "(Btw, how did you do it?!)"

Google, of course. I knew the meltdown had to be fairly recent, so I googled for site:www.washingtonmonthly.com "posted by: Cheney" March 2006. It didn't take long to find.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

FrequencyKenneth: We can't count on the Bush-haters when the going gets tough.


f-k....dont you know...when the going gets tough..

the tough mention clinton...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 21, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"An opposing argument refuted by known and objective fact is not a possibility any more than proffering the opposing argument that the sun is not hot is a possibility.

If it is, however, then nothing can ever be known with sufficient certainty to label it as fact and you are arguing that you are right from the perspective of no fact or opinion can ever be proven wrong."

YEAY! You're right! And I was so sad when the inspectors came back with their report. *bottom lip sticking out* I thought to myself, self, there are the facts, deal with it. Where my objectivity comes into play is when new "possible" information comes to light that says what were originaly thought of as facts may not indeed be facts, I'm willing to listen. Ya see. Objectivity in a nice neat little package for ya.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK


don p. : perhaps letting the bad guys slip away again like Clinton did with bin Ladin?

name one action bush took against bin laden before 9-11...

just one...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 21, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

AFG: So, [then] you're saying the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes, abandoned arrogance, and embraced reason, despite equally overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Well, let's hope you are right.

But wait! Don't get your hopes up too high!

Three years ago, Mar. 18, 2003, in a letter to Congress, Bush writes:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002...I determine that...acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Yesterday, Bush fielded a question at the City Club of Cleveland regarding the war in Iraq.

Q... My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein....
Reality check! Dubya's gone fishin', doh-dee-doh-doh-doh, for applause. Must be hard work to get those approval ratings up.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 21, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42: I'm willing to listen . . .

No, you are not.

The fact that you continue to claim only that Bush maybe didn't lie about WMDs, despite objective fact that he did no numerous occassions, including through omission, demonstrates this.

The mere fact that the evidence is ambiguous regarding some Bush claims about WMDs does not call into question whether he lied about their existence.

Powell's February 2001 statement is an objective fact about what the administration knew and thought about Saddam's WMDs and WMD programs.

Saddam didn't magically obtain new WMDs and new WMD programs after 9/11 and the administration never had and never has presented any evidence at all to even raise that as a possibility.

The only thing that changed regarding the analysis of Saddam's WMDs and WMD programs was the administration's improper use of 9/11 to suggest an Iraqi threat that they already knew, as confirmed by Powell's statement, didn't exist.

You can parse that all you want, but you are in denial about its existence, it's meaning, it's relevance, and it's evidentiary value.

And that is just one fact that shows that Bush lied.

Clearly, then, you are unwilling to listen to anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived notion that Bush never lied about WMDs.

LOL.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 21, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq and Iran have oil. Energy companies want it for monopoly profits. War pigs want it in order to wage war. Both are primary constituents of the political party monopoly of the US.

Syria provides a direct line of communication for that oil to be delivered and/or is a threat to that line of communication.

Although I think Israel has been a driving force requesting US intervention in the Middle East for its own imperialist reasons, it is not a prime motivator of US policy but a diversion. The Holy Land as a propaganda tool is very useful, mobilizing support for the policies of energy monopolists and defense contractors. Even yesterday, Israel's security was invoked by Bush as a reason for US militantism, but Iraq posed no threat to Isreal and I really do not think Iran poses a threat to Israel's security either. Iran does pose a threat to Israel's continued expansion, which allows for the continued alliance between the US's monopoly party and militant Zionism. When the oil is gone, America's subsidy of Israel will cease.

Posted by: Hostile on March 21, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

AFG: There is proof that Bush, or his agents for whom he is responsible, have lied about the intelligence about Iraq and withheld information (lied through omission).


here's one example...

bush often says congress had the same info he did...

seems to me that an easy way to prove that is for
congress to ask for the presidential daily briefings leading up to the war to double check that claim...

sadly...

3-years after the fact...

that hasnt happened...

wonder why....

don p. whats total control for if not avoiding accountability....

"This is what the tyranny of a one-party state is like, people!" - Rush Limbaugh 1993

dead enders = immune to facts or irony

Posted by: thispsaceavailable on March 21, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Iran is certainly a nasty regime, but we've been down this road before. Only an idiot would believe the Bush administration a second time around unless they have some awfully good evidence to share with us. And as the article makes clear, they don't."

And here it is in a nutshell:
This may or may not be true, but the point is that Bush cried Wolf once too many times to be trusted. He has no credibility, and because of that his opinion can never be trusted again. So Iran may be the wolf or it may be the lamb, but the evidence will have to come from another source other our Government.
Sorry, CIA, know you guys are doing a great job and all, but Bush's, Cheney's, and Rumsfeld's presence has tainted anything and everything that comes out.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on March 21, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Bush lies on the national TV again, but thank god not about BJ.

Posted by: lib on March 21, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Bush on March 20, 2006: I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein....

Bush press conference on September 25, 2002: Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh but I did listen, as I said and I WAS bummed about it. I mean what kind of idiot WANTS the world to think our president is a liar? But...

"The mere fact that the evidence is ambiguous regarding some Bush claims about WMDs does not call into question whether he lied about their existence"

this new "possible" information DOES call into question whether he lied about their existence. Sada's book claims (or so I've read) that the weapons, lab equipment, records and all were moved to Syria JUST before we attacked. IF (big if admittedly) this is true then Bush didn't lie about their existance. Therefore the original "Facts" were false.
Of course I admit nothing about this "new info" has been proven yet but as I said I am willing to listen.

Glad you can laugh about this, it IS pretty funny.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42

They moved all of it few planetrips, didn't they? Must have been a frightfully potent arsenal.

Posted by: bblog on March 21, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

The wingnuts are right. Bush did not lie about anything. He was told by god to say what he said. That by definition cannot be a lie.

Posted by: lib on March 21, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

bblog
*shrug* Some land movements were mentioned also but I dunno. I haven't read the book, Just about it.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney had this to say:

"Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength," he said. "They are invited by the perception of weakness."

This is a theory, a belief and an ideology and not only is Cheney presenting it as a truth, but he is basing a whole foreign policy on it. Is there any precedence for this?

Posted by: bblog on March 21, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure Preznit Bush has not made a direction connection between Al Qaeda and Iran, I mean Iraq, no wait, I DO mean Iran, don't I?

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 21, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK
This is a theory, a belief and an ideology and not only is Cheney presenting it as a truth, but he is basing a whole foreign policy on it. Is there any precedence for this?

Yes, every foreign policy ever has had its principles based on theory, belief, and ideology. So there are thousands of years of precedent, in every nation on earth, for this.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 21, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Sada's book claims (or so I've read) that the weapons, lab equipment, records and all were moved to Syria JUST before we attacked. IF (big if admittedly) this is true then Bush didn't lie about their existance. Therefore the original "Facts" were false.

But that's quite impossible if you start to think about it, for several reasons:

1. We were actively monitoring Iraqi movements, bugging their communications, controlling their airspace, etc. in the run-up to the war, so it would have been difficult if not impossible to move anything of that magnitude.

2. You can move things out of the labs, armories, etc. but you still leave the physical lab buildings and armories, the physical infrastructure, behind. We didn't find any of those.

3. Similarly, what happened to all the scientists, technicians, workers, even down to the level of janitors, who were supposedly working on this program? We have most of those people in custody, and none of them have confirmed this, even despite the fact that they would richly benefit if they did so.

4. Finally, if Sada's claim was true, it would mean that the whole war was a gigantic cock-up. After all, we didn't invade Iraq to give its weapons to Syria, did we? We invaded, supposedly, to either destroy or secure Iraq's (non-existent) weapons. If they went to Syria that means we let them slip through our grasp and now anyone, even Al Qaeda, might have them (if they existed, that is). So the whole "they were moved to Syria" theory would demonstrate Bush's failure, not his success.

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker, what about when Bush said this in an interview with the Polish press on May 29, 2003:

" We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

He said "we found the weapons of mass distruction" when we had not, in fact, found them. Is that a lie or not? Plainly and simply, he said "we found them" when we had not, so, plainly and simply, is that a lie or not?

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK
this new "possible" information DOES call into question whether he lied about their existence. Sada's book claims (or so I've read) that the weapons, lab equipment, records and all were moved to Syria JUST before we attacked.

The specific lies and misrepresentations that have come to light would not be altered even by solid evidence that Iraq had some WMD unrelated to the specific claims that the Administration made that turn out to have been false, and for which the administration had information from which they should have known they were false.

i.e., the winnebagos of mass destruction, aluminum tubes, etc.

Now, it is abstractly possible, though decreasingly probable as time goes on, that information could exist and come to light in the future that would show that, despite the fact that they were knowingly exaggerating and outright lying about the facts available to them on the details, that the big picture the Administration was trying to paint was nevertheless true. This wouldn't change or excuse the lying, however, though it could be politically fortuitous for them nonetheless.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 21, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Don's odd behavior stems from a variety of stressors/events that plagued him as a youngster, including having to ride the short bus, breast feeding until he was nine, and becoming a serial masturbator by the age of eleven.

Don was a sweet kid until the tormenting started. After that, he became quite manic.

Posted by: Ms. Terwilliger, Don's Fifth Grade Teacher on March 21, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan

What do I look like, Bushes press sexy-tary? A-HA!...HAHAHAHA the pictures make 'em stop HAHAHAHA.

Ok that certainly appears to be a lie. During WWII there were a lot of lies flying around. Even those in the press would exagerate the truth on occasion. It was to bolster the countrys' morale not to deceive anyone. Not all lies are a bad thing. It WOULD be bad to lie to get us into the war IF that's the case, agreed. But a lie to bolster our morale?..you make that call individualy.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

But very unlikely Al Qaeda. Al Q is a sworn enemy of Shi'ite Iran.

I have this vision of Don P. reading this and doing the dog-head-tilt thing.

Hilarious. Unfortunately for the globe, I also have the same vision of George W. reading this and doing the dog-head-tilt thing. After all, it was even less likely that Saddam and AQ were working together and look what W. did.

Posted by: ckelly on March 21, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, every foreign policy ever has had its principles based on theory, belief, and ideology. So there are thousands of years of precedent, in every nation on earth, for this.

Ok, then is it a sound idealogy? Did the attacks on London and Madrid occur through a perception of weakness? They occured because religious fanatics are willing to give their lives for a holy war.

Posted by: bblog on March 21, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

To me the jury is still out on whether Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy etc. lied about WMD's and Saddams involvement with Bin Ladden.

To Lurker the jury is still out on whether the Earth is round...

Posted by: ckelly on March 21, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

"To Lurker the jury is still out on whether the Earth is round..."

No I'm pretty much convinced of that one having been in the navy for 8 years with 3 6month cruises. I SEEN that proof.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 21, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

We can't count on the Bush-haters when the going gets tough.

Here let me help you with your typo -- Freak.

"We can't count on the Bush when the going gets tough."

Posted by: ckelly on March 21, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan and Apollo 13 above are quoting from an email sent by the DNC yesterday.

PowerlineBlog has the details of the DNC email.

Funny to see idiots like Stefan and Apollo 13 rush to this blog to parrot DNC talking points.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 21, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Funny to see idiots like Stefan and Apollo 13 rush to this blog to parrot DNC talking points.

What the hell are you talking about? I WRITE those DNC talking points....

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

"2. You can move things out of the labs, armories, etc. but you still leave the physical lab buildings and armories, the physical infrastructure, behind. We didn't find any of those."

I thought according to Chris Hitchens, that the Iraq invasion was justified because some plans for a nuclear weapon were buried in some guys backyard. Those could be smuggled into Syria.

Come to think of it, I don't know why we're even talking about Iran. The plans are in Syria. Syria is a grave and gathering danger. We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud now, do we?

Posted by: brewmn on March 21, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

if there's anyone osama loves even more than the secular saddam, it's the shi'ite regime in iran. and he hates the wahabbists, who have a huge border with iraq, but would never do anything to hurt the us, i've been assured

Posted by: the smartest troll on March 21, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud now, do we?

Mmmmmmm....mushrooms.....*gurgling slopping sounds*

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Double Speak Award Winner Announced
--Jack Hitt

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), for an email to his Team American PAC in which he insisted that the reason we needed to secure our nations border was the struggle to preserve our national identity.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), for having his spokesman issue an ex-planation for a curiosity on his financial disclosure forms, which showed that the representative had reported a $30,000 debt but then experienced a conspicuous streak of luck during a fleeting visit to a private high-stakes casino. The congressman, according to his flack, placed two bets, the first at $100, and won $34,000 in a three-card game of chance.

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), for taking issue with Katrina survivors at a congressional hearing when they compared their temporary housing to concentration camps. Not a single person was marched into a gas chamber and killed, Miller explained.

Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), for eliminating the $1.3 million funding (and all future funding) for the Fish Passage Center, which carried out a simple count of endangered salmon on the Columbia and Snake rivers, calculating the fishs decline. Craigwho, during his last campaign, received more money from energy groups than from any other industry and was honored by the National Hydropower Association as Legislator of the Yearaccused fisheries scientists of advocacy, arguing that false science leads people to false choices.

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), for claiming that hed never met Jack Abramoff when it became public that political fixer Ralph Reed had assured Abramoff in an email, We have also choreographed Cornyns response.

WINNER! Bob Ney, who allegedly helped Abramoffs casino clients, has refused to elaborate on his casino visit because of the national security implications.
------------------
Back to your regularly scheduled Blog
Oh NEY!

Posted by: Hamster Brain on March 21, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), for taking issue with Katrina survivors at a congressional hearing when they compared their temporary housing to concentration camps. Not a single person was marched into a gas chamber and killed, Miller explained.

Shorter Rep. Jeff Miller (R. Fla) -- at least we're better than Hitler!

Talk about setting the bar low....

Posted by: Stefan on March 21, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

DON P.
http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/menwith.htm
What they are saying is BUSH wouldn't know how to operate or Program this technology.
Ergo BUSH wouldn't KNOW who to tell NSA to spy on, [Group of Quakers] and that's what PEOPLE want to know.
Hell YOU can read all about the SIGINT History from FAX machines to CELL and SATELLITE HERE!
there is nothing all that NEO in what Bush is doing or DID except of WHOM [political?] he/they spyed upon.
---------------
Menwith Hill Station, UK
( 54.0162 N; 1.6826 W )
http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/menwith.htm
Menwith Hill
Menwith Hill in the UK is the principal NATO theater ground segment node for high altitude signals intelligence satellites. The facility, jointly operated with the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), is now capable of carrying out two million intercepts per hour.

Menwith Hill Station was established in 1956 by the US Army Security Agency (ASA). Menwith Hill was operated by ASA from 1958 until its turnover to NSA in June 1966. The Army 713th MI Group remains the Executive Agent for the NSA Menwith Hill field site, which was awarded the NSA's "Station of the Year" prize for 1991 after its role in the Gulf War. The Air Intelligence Agency 451st Intelligence Squadron (451 IS) as an integral part of Menwith Hill Station (MHS). Inside the closely-guarded 560 acre base are two large operations blocks and many satellite tracking dishes and domes. Initial operations focused on monitoring international cable and microwave communications passing through Britain. In the early 1960s Menwith Hill was one of the first sites in the world to receive sophisticated early IBM computers, with which NSA automated the labor-intensive watch-list scrutiny of intercepted but unenciphered telex messages. Since then, Menwith Hill has sifted the international messages, telegrams, and telephone calls of citizens, corporations or governments to select information of political, military or economic value.
----------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Hamster Brain on March 21, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yeh Some BIG SECRET huh DON P.?

In the early 1960s Menwith Hill was one of the first sites in the world to receive sophisticated early IBM computers, with which NSA automated the labor-intensive watch-list scrutiny of intercepted but unenciphered telex messages. Since then, Menwith Hill has sifted the international messages, telegrams, and telephone calls of citizens, corporations or governments to select information of political, military or economic value.

Posted by: Hamster Brain on March 21, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

If there are Al Qaeda in Iran or Pakistan:
IT IS GEORGE FUCKING DUBYA'S FAULT.

He should be removed from office before someone gets hurt.

Too late.

Posted by: ckelly on March 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, more afternoon love notes.

BigRiver pontificates: Stefan and Apollo 13 above are quoting from an email sent by the DNC yesterday.

Not true. You're ass-uming that I don't visit wingnut sites like PowerlineBlog via my blog feed and can click a link to do my own factchecking, or get news email alerts on the preznit's speeches, and a few TVs going at the same time.

But you failed to comment on the substance of Dubya's flippity-floppity prose. That's telling. And a typical troll tactic: Avoid substance and change the subject.

Stefan: What the hell are you talking about? I WRITE those DNC talking points....

Dang, Stefan! I thought I was quoting Bush, not an email by you. How did you get Dubya to read your email point on TV? Does that mean my comment about Dubya gone fishin', doh-dee-doh-doh-doh, for applause made the talking point email? Sweet!

LOL!

Helen Thomas was just on CNN. Feisty! Yeah, Dubya is the worst preznit.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 21, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

.....breast feeding until he was nine, and becoming a serial masturbator by the age of eleven.

Hey! Masturbation in defense of virginity is no vice.

Posted by: nut on March 21, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hamster Brain:

I presume that Menwith Hill screed was directed toward my comment about "sources and methods"?

Posted by: Don P. on March 21, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Funny to see idiots like Stefan and Apollo 13 rush to this blog to parrot DNC talking points.

Funny to see an idiotic troll rush to Political Animal to parrot a PowerlineBlog talking point.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 21, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

My first reaction is that this story was either planted by the CIA or military psy-ops (i.e. DIA) personnel. Our government has become a fascist state that is more interested in feeding the military-industrial beast than it is in being honest and open with the American people. If anybody is familiar with Project Mockingbird, an on-going effort by the CIA to infiltrate the American media, that effort has only gotten worse, much worse under the Bush II administration. As sad as it is, the American government is now deeply involved in manipulating the media and planting stories. Look at FoxNews. America now has a 100% controlled state media organ, that will say absolutely anything to bolster the current administration. In my estimation, FoxNews is no different than Tass was in the old Soviet Union. Look at the Armstrong Williams episode and the planting of stories in Iraqi newspapers.

Please also note the sourcing of this story as some officials in paragraph two. What the hell does that mean? The head janitor at the Pentagon? A man in sunglasses standing outside the CIAs Langley facility? WTF? We are supposed to take these some officials at their word? While the current Iranian leaders are, by and large, nasty people and Ahmadinejad is probably as crazy as a loon, Iran is at least 10 years away from getting a nuke, by our own countrys estimate. There is still time for persuasion, embargoes and diplomacy in many forms, before we go nuclear on the mofos. Our lapdogs, the Israelis, on the other hand, want to nuke first and ask questions later. We will seal the doom of the United States and be marching headlong into Armageddon, if we, or if we allow Israel to, rush in with nuclear weapons.

What I find particularly alarming in this article, quoting the unnamed counterterrorism official, is that almost five years after 9-11, we still do not have any humint (human intelligence) on the ground in Iran, to give us an insiders glimpse into what nutbirds like Ahmadinejad are up to. This is a tragic, tragic failure of leadership. The Bushies have become so enamored of these gee whiz, high tech gadgets like the Predator, that they apparently get an erection and cant think clearly. For the amount of our tax dollars we pay for one of those high-tech gizmos, we could recruit, hire and train 10 Iranian undercover agents and have them positioned so close to Ahmadinejad 24/7, so that we would know what color his crap is on a daily basis. Dont say we cant, since there are an estimated 13,000 Iranian students here on student visas that the CIA could be recruiting.

Im with you, Kevin. If the Bushies want to commit American blood and treasure to another imperialistic adventure, they better show us a lot more than satellite photographs showing some damned truck parked outside a bunker (like they did with the run-up to the Iraq invasion) or a scratchy audio tape of some Persian-speaking putz discussing the latest World Cup soccer match. These criminals in Bushs executive branch, including Bush and Cheney themselves, are grossly incompetent and need to be impeached and imprisoned. Only then can we deal with Iran in some sort of meaningful and productive way.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 21, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Don P wrote: "I presume that Menwith Hill screed was directed toward my comment about 'sources and methods'?"

Probably, but it doesn't really matter since, as usual, your comment was really, really stupid. It was funny, though, so at least you have that to fall back on.

Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly