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 24, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

IRAN UPDATE....Knight Ridder quotes three anonymous officials about Iran's nuclear program:

Based on the IAEA data, U.S. experts have concluded that "Iran could be as little as two to three years away from having nuclear weapons, with all the necessary caveats and assumptions and extrapolations about them overcoming technical hurdles," said one U.S. official. "Admittedly, those are significant assumptions."

...."They are moving much quicker than everyone thought," said the [foreign] diplomat, who didn't offer an estimate on how soon Iran might be able to produce highly enriched uranium.

...."I think it's fair to say that there's growing concern about what the Iranians may be up to," said a U.S. defense official.

Keep your eye on Dick Cheney. Presumably he's still the Bush administration bellwether.

Kevin Drum 12:56 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (128)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Can't we just drop Dick "dead-eye" Cheney into Eye-Rack with a shotgun and a parka? He'll sort out those Islamic enemies of freedom right quick!

Posted by: craigie on March 24, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

On second thought, scratch that. As an atheist, I don't believe that Dick Cheney exists.

I think his "undisclosed location" is real, though.

Posted by: craigie on March 24, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

So why didn't we attack them first? Or N Korea?
Don't those countries have large supplies of flowers and candy?
But I guess they think the American people are stupid enough to fall for the same lie, again.
I know that al and the other bedwetters are that stupid, but the rest of us aren't.

Posted by: merlallen on March 24, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

OK, all of this sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh,yes, that's right - all this kind of "information" was bubbling up just before the invasion of Iraq. Strange, isn't it, that information turned out to be completely made up. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me again ... you can't fool me again.

Posted by: Taobhan on March 24, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

So why didn't we attack them first?

We're still doing reconnaissance on locations to stage the victory photo-ops - you know, pulling down statues of mullahs, weeping children with blue fingers, that sort of thing. Once we get that sorted out, then we roll in with 11,000 buses from New Orleans, and right after that it's "Mission Accomplished," baby!

Posted by: craigie on March 24, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

Wait a minute - I remember this show from the 2002 Sweeps Week. Cool graphics, Wolf Blitzer, Colin Powell wth a vial. It was a big hit for about four months. But the reruns aren't doin so hot.

Posted by: HeavyJ on March 24, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

Hell, if I were Iran, I'd be making nukes too while the US is bogged down in Iraq. But isn't Iran the reason we are in Iraq anyway.

Posted by: The Fake Fake Al on March 24, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

This time around, it will definitely be cheaper to just give everyone in Iran $100,000 to join the Republican party. Nobody dies, and we save a bunch of money. Plus, the GOP gets a fresh infusion of criminals, now that most of the old ones are going to jail.

Posted by: craigie on March 24, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Wolf!

Posted by: George W Bush on March 24, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

craigie - not quite financially feasible, even on the Iraq-war scale. You're talking about something like 6 trillion dollars. Cut that by a factor of 10, and you'd be talking sense.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 24, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

But isn't Iran the reason we are in Iraq anyway.

Sounds like you, me, and Helen Thomas don't know why we're in Iraq. Reading the transcripts of his last speech, I'm not sure Bush knows why, either.

By this November Bush may have killed more Americans than Al Qaeda, but judging from the way he gets animated when talking about death, I'm not sure he sees this as a bad thing.

Posted by: Wapiti on March 24, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

Just a while ago they were ten years from having nukes, then 5 years; shit, by the start of Hurricane season they'll be only weeks away.

Posted by: Brian Boru on March 24, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

Amazing that so many countries' WMD programs seem to be running on a schedule sync'ed up to our elections.

Posted by: Jon H on March 24, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

Good thing the IAEA has absolutely no credibility AT ALL when it comes to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Whew!

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 24, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

The Iran threat is trivial compared to the Pakistan threat. Hard-core pro-Taliban Islamists control large parts of the Pakistani intelligence service, as well as several provinces. The current leader of Pakistan came to power via a military coup. He could lose power the same way, and we could be facing clones of Mullah Omar (leader of the Taliban) in control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

And North Korea evidently already has a couple of nuclear weapons.

But suddenly we are told that Iran is the number one threat.

Posted by: Joe Buck on March 24, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

The people of Iran and the greater middle east are very close to understanding are true motives concerning peace and freedom. My guess is that they are already secretly planting flowers in anticipation of their liberation.

To make sure they understand (and as a good will gesture) we should send a contingent of female marines to Mina, raise the american flag high above the jamarat, and protect them from stone throwers.

Posted by: fake boobs on March 24, 2006 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

I'd like to suggest a politial ploy:

Some Democrats (say Conyers, Boxer, Feingold, etc.) should simply propose that Bush should step aside and allow a bipartisan group of Congressman to lead the US response and strategy against Iran. Because everyone knows that Bush cannot properly deal with this situation given Bush's lack of credibility and incompetence, coupled with the seriousness and complexity of the Iranian nulear threat.

Bush would never step aside of course, but it would make headlines, would embarass the sheet out of Bush, and let's face it, it would be good for our country.

Posted by: BlueBrooklyn on March 24, 2006 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

Not entirely unrelated, you have to check out the first post over at Talking Points Memo,

"In any case, now the AP is reporting that the Bush administration is subcontracting a key aspect of port security to Hutchison (a Chinese company). And when I say 'key' I mean key. They're going to be the ones scanning in-bound cargo for signs of illicit nuclear materials. They're in charge of it -- no oversight or supervision by US Customs."

This is just so fabulous. It's like giving them carte blanche to steal whatever they want.

Posted by: cld on March 24, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK


CAL GAL: Good thing the IAEA has absolutely no credibility AT ALL when it comes to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

If the IAEA was drawing these conclusions from their data it would be far more credible than the spin put on it by U.S. "experts" and officials.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 24, 2006 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

If we let them get away with Iraqing Iran, we all deserve the Armageddon they're working on.

Posted by: Jones on March 24, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe,
Do you seriously believe that an invasion of Iran would ultimately cost less than $6 trillion? haha.
Seriously, it looks like bushiekins handlers want to bankrupt the US as badly as the NAZI's bankrupted Germany using the same methods. Interesting how all the profits seem to be going into the same hands, too.

Posted by: joe on March 24, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

BOOGA BOOGA 2

Coming to your TV screens this Summer.
.

Posted by: VJ on March 24, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

Coming to a TV near you: The Iran Nuclear Takedown.

As Andy Card said the last time around (in 2002), you don't introduce a product in August.

So, right after labor day, 60 days from election 06, expect Bush to be standing before the joint session of Congress asking for an 'authorization for the use of military force' to bomb the Iranian suspected nuclear research sites.

By the time Bush requests, we will have the air and sea fleets in place, UN resolutions authorizing something in place (or bypassing the UN after failed 'negotiations' with the EU, Russia and China require unilateral US action), and the media cameras in place (in satellites?) for Shock and Awe - The Sequel.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on March 24, 2006 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINK

The Future of Iran,

Iran develops atom bomb.

Iran has 'accident' with atom bomb.

Washington laments that atoms bombs are dangerous.

Iran reveals that its' atom bomb was nowhere near where the 'accident' happened and invites the UN to come and look at it.

Washington says they're lying and to stop their awful lying invades, for humanitarian reasons.

Posted by: cld on March 24, 2006 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK

But suddenly we are told that Iran is the number one threat.

Posted by: Joe Buck on March 24, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

Number one threat without a Nuke. Once they have a Nuke, you can't do squat about it e.g. Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Russia

Posted by: McA on March 24, 2006 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINK

Iran reveals that its' atom bomb was nowhere near where the 'accident' happened and invites the UN to come and look at it.

Washington says they're lying and to stop their awful lying invades, for humanitarian reasons.

Posted by: cld on March 24, 2006 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK

Wrong. Washington would invade them because they have admitted to having a nuke and their last detonation shows they are irresponsible.

That's Chutzpah.

Posted by: McA on March 24, 2006 at 4:52 AM | PERMALINK

Excellent summation, VJ.

Posted by: Tom DC/VA on March 24, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

You just know that "Real Men Want To Go To Iran" is chanted every time two or more of these ass-holes get together!

Posted by: R.L. on March 24, 2006 at 4:59 AM | PERMALINK

given Bush's lack of credibility and incompetence

Bush lacks incompetence? I'd say he has it in spades.

Posted by: ogmb on March 24, 2006 at 5:29 AM | PERMALINK

Spring 2007... That's when we do it... Has to be after the mid-term elections but before Bush entirely becomes a lame duck.

Posted by: E. Nonee Moose on March 24, 2006 at 7:26 AM | PERMALINK

Something else may be going on here. Time for some pure speculation: Bush may be pulling a Saddam on us and Iran. We don't have the military resources right now to "invade" Iran, but if we keep talking like we do, maybe Iran will chicken out.

Posted by: Wonderin on March 24, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

Duck, I see a mushroom cloud in the future.

Too bad we invaded Iraq. It would make dealing with Iran much easier.

Posted by: David in NY on March 24, 2006 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

Just a while ago they were ten years from having nukes, then 5 years; shit, by the start of Hurricane season they'll be only weeks away.

Well, that's an interesting point. How will another big hurricane or two or three this fall, with the accompanying FUBAR federal response, affect Bushco's ability to stage their October surprise(s)?

Posted by: shortstop on March 24, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

The problem with crying wolf is that nobody believes you when a wolf shows up. That is the problem the administration has here. It is a problem of their own making. I don't believe them, but on the other hand, what if they are right?

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 24, 2006 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

Look, guys, it was meant to be Iran all along. George just got a bit confuzzled and went for the wrong one--he never was any good at that geography and spelling thing, anyway.

"Ooops! My bad." He says, and can't understand what everybody is so pissed about. He's just trying to protect America, see?

Posted by: LAS on March 24, 2006 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

"They are moving much quicker than everyone thought,"

mmmmm, now ehere have i heard that before????

Posted by: zoot on March 24, 2006 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, we gotta hire us some of those Iranians. When they do a job, it always gets completed early. Think how fast things would get build around here if the estimated ten years suddenly became three years, and then, just a few weeks!

That's not the way things usually happen where I live.

Posted by: serial catowner on March 24, 2006 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

The sad fact is all of that could be true, but because the Bush administration cried wolf on Iraq I don't think I can believe a word they say. Ever.

Posted by: ET on March 24, 2006 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe we should send Jimma Carter to negotiate. They wouldn't feel threatened by him and would gladly turn over any nuclear weapons to such a kind and thoughtful man.

After all they owe him for the whole Muslim take over.

Posted by: Orwell on March 24, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

This is the Republican defense? Blaming Carter?

You fellas are really phoning it in.

Posted by: shortstop on March 24, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

It would be nice if, for once, the liberals took a stand on a issue of national security that aligns with the national interest.

Couldn't you guys put down your Bush hatred colored glasses just for a moment to see the grave threat that the Ayatollahs of Iran pose for peace on earth, something that you so loudly sing about?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 24, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

How will another big hurricane or two or three this fall, with the accompanying FUBAR federal response, affect Bushco's ability to stage their October surprise(s)?

It very much depends on the water temperature. The warmer it is now, the faster and higher it will warm this summer, the longer the season will run, and the stronger the storms will be. Here's how unusual last year was. From an NOAA document:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf

The central pressure in Katrina fell to 902 mb near 1800 UTC 28 August. This pressure was (at the time) the fourth lowest on record in the Atlantic basin, behind 888 mb in Gilbert (1988), 892 mb in the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, and 899 mb in Allen (1980). However, it has since quickly fallen to sixth lowest, following an observation of 897 mb in Hurricane Rita in September 2005 and the new record of 882 mb in Hurricane Wilma in October 2005.

Measured in terms of barometric pressure, half of the top six Atlantic storms occurred LAST YEAR. Wilma was a bit of a weirdo because it formed in an area of ambient low pressure, but those are the numbers. Those three storms were also unusual in how fast they grew. If you track predicted growth vs actual, they more or less exploded. The conditions were favorable for hurricane growth, but I don't think that could have happened without a lot of warm water (which, no doubt, is all part of God's Great Plan, and has nothing at all to do with us putting junk in the air).

Posted by: dr2chase on March 24, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

The Fundamentalist War: Both the US and Iranian governments are trying to force the Messiah to come quicker.

Tbrosz - What do you think the Shiites in Iraq (60% of the population) will do if we attack Iran? Stand by and applaud? Even the Iraqi Kurds had close ties to Tehran in the Saddam years. How would you like to see us fighting the entire population of Iraq, at the same time Iranian fanatics are pouring across the border?

Posted by: Red on March 24, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

I found this interesting. Sun-Sentinel, Mar. 23, 2006:

During the Ford administration, Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld persuaded the president to approve a deal to supply to the Shah's Iran reprocessing ability for a full-blown nuclear program. The 1979 revolutionary government closed down the operation. Iran is now faced with a peak in oil production and seeks an alternative energy source.

They were for it before they were agin it when their hand-picked despotic puppet was in place. More from the article:

Iran has taken the position that the solution is a Middle East nuclear-free zone. When the International Atomic Energy Agency met in early February, its report called for a "Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction." The U.S. delayed the report for a day in a futile attempt to remove the language.
Israel's 200 to 300 nuclear weapons are the ignored Middle East "elephant in the room." The U.S. has given Israel the bunker-buster bombs, F-16s and software for precision strikes on Iran. Vice President Cheney has stated that Israel or the U.S. may strike Iran at either's option, and in a speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee repeated the threat -- although two AIPAC officials are under indictment for passing on to the Israel government classified information concerning a secret plan to destabilize Iran. The Pentagon official who passed on the information has pleaded guilty to the offense.
[...]
Shall we listen to Richard Perle, one of the neocons who got us into Iraq, who says that we should "take action [against Iran] now or lose the option to take action"?

And don't forget the other bellwether, the enabling handmaiden, Condi Rice, Jan. 12, 2006:

There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment. We're gravely concerned by Iran's long history of hiding sensitive nuclear activities from the IAEA, in violation of its obligations, its refusal to cooperate with the IAEA's investigation, its rejection of diplomatic initiatives offered by the EU and Russia and now its dangerous defiance of the entire international community. [Cite]

Keep your eyes on Condi, too.


Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 24, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Golly.

I've never heard anything like this before, but could this be what "escalation" sounds like?

Excuse me now, while I turn up my television. I need more information about this looming threat to my peace and income, and I need it from people who sound like they know what they're talking about.

Maybe somebody should send somebody's husband out to investigate further. We don't have to listen to what he says, but it might confirm what we fear.

Posted by: carp on March 24, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

to see the grave threat that the Ayatollahs of Iran pose for peace on earth

Give it a rest. That florid neocon-speak is tired and played. We all remember what a grave threat Hussein was to the rest of the world and his vaunted armed forces folded like a house of cards - twice. And all that WMD? Never used on the US military, even as it took Baghdad.

When will you neocons realize that nuclear weapons does not a "grave threat" make? So what if Iran goes nuclear? Are they going to lob a crude atomic bomb on Israel, knowing that they will receive 100 nuclear-tipped missiles in return.

Nope.

Will Iran attack Russia?

Nope.

Will Iran attack the US?

Nope.

Iran will use the nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a foreign invasion. Of course, the only country who can threaten them with invasion is the US.

So, if you want to say that Iranian nuclear weapons present a "grave threat to invading US forces," be my guest.

But can the "grave threat to the world" schtick - you sound like Chicken Little.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 24, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

Some goofball named 'carp' at 9:16 said we need to send Joe Wilson to Iran to find out what is really going on.

Good God in heaven, where do these nutjobs come from?

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 24, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Let me clarify my point: They were for it before they were agin it when their hand-picked despotic puppet was in place.

Rummy and Cheney didn't hand-pick the Shah during the 1953 CIA coup to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq and eventually install the Shah. I would amend my statement to say "preferred" rather than "hand-picked."

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 24, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

>"...asking for an 'authorization for the use of military force' "

What makes you think he will even ask? He has already claimed ultimate power as 'Commander in Chief'.

>"...grave threat that the Ayatollahs of Iran pose for peace on earth"

Great comedy here. Most of the planet (quite correctly) see the United States and Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

Quick question. How many nations has Iran invaded in the last 100 years?

At any rate, Osama's plan is working perfectly.

With the Bush cabal in office he knew he could provoke an overblown and irrational US response to 20 people hijacking 4 airliners and launch the world into an Islamic/Western war.

A great tragedy is unfolding before us.

Posted by: Buford on March 24, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Good God in heaven, where do these nutjobs come from?

Hey, when you know that you don't have a case, just shit on the other side of the 'argument.'

Funny thing is, they were wrong about Wilson the first time, and now that they're wrong about Iran, they're throwing Wilson's name like so much monkey-feces.

This is what passes for thinking on the right.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on March 24, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

There is something seriously creepy about a 50,000 centrifuges pumping away in giant halls under an artificial/blast resistant mountain in Natanz to enrich uranium.

It takes vast duplicity for the Iranians to claim there's a peaceful purpose for their "nuclear refinery" in Natanz, and for the rest of the world to pretend this claim is true.

Posted by: jerry on March 24, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

There is something seriously creepy about a 50,000 centrifuges pumping away in giant halls under an artificial/blast resistant mountain in Natanz to enrich uranium.

There's something creepy NOW? We knew about this facility back in 2002, but it wasn't in the talking-points of prominent Party members, was it?

Hussein's gassing of the Kurds was an outrage when it happened, but it wasn't in the talking-points of prominent Party members until 2002, was it?
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on March 24, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

Whew, thank God NSA cleared that whole "Iran threat" thing up for us. Please get in touch with Israel and let them know that they can sleep peaceful at night with nukes in Iran, for the intellectually superior NSA Mole is convinced that they mean them no harm. I am sure glad that is behind us.

Now, what do we do about that abortion ban in South Dakota?

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

What about those yellow cakes that Iran has acquired from Namibia?

Posted by: nut on March 24, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK


Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; A01

Is anyone surprised that the Administration has shopped around for new statements that fit their political and ideological agenda just as they did with Iraq?

In October of 2002, Bush claimed we didnt know exactly how far Iraq was from having a nuclear weapon, but asserted that it was less than 3 years away from having one when invaded in 1991.
"the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993."

Bush's claim like many others probably is completely misleading, though I havent researched whether that was actually the conclusion... he went on with fear mongering rhetoric: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Two to three years is also convenient in that Bush can argue that he cannot allow this risk to pass to the next administration. Is it too bad or a good thing the Bush administration apparently wasnt paying attention to North Korea?

Posted by: Catch22 on March 24, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

NSA Mole has got it right. Give it a rest. Iran's not going to invade anyone (we took care of Iraq for them anyway). Iran's going to get nuclear weapons if the Israeli's let them- which I seriously doubt. All the mutterings and well planted grave warnings are paving the way for the Israeli action to come. After Osiris, however, my guess would be that it won't be as easy the second time around. Something's definitely going on, but the US won't be invading Iran anytime soon. I think the administration is just trying to prepare the ground for the Israeli's.

Posted by: ExBrit on March 24, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sure the new Curtis LeMay movie "Thirty Seconds over Teheran" will be a big hit at the screening room at 1600ville.

However, I would pay to see "Thirty Seconds over McA's Keyboard".

Posted by: stupid git on March 24, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

It takes vast duplicity for the Iranians to claim there's a peaceful purpose for their "nuclear refinery" in Natanz, and for the rest of the world to pretend this claim is true.

What's the "peaceful purpose" of the US stockpile of nuclear weapons?

Posted by: Stefan on March 24, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Kind of hard to pay attention to North Korea when you're not in office and the sitting President and his Half-Bright SOS, or excuse me, Albright; are making freinds with NK and passing along the intel needed to construct such a weapon all on the promise of:
"Now don't use this technology to develop a nuclear bomb, OK, and then we can all be freinds and maybe invite you to one our parties with Hollywood celebrities, we know you'll be impressed".

I guess the little maniac dictator in NK wasn't impressed.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, "friend" is one of the simplest and most frequently used words in the English language, and yet you manage to misspell it every freakin' time.

Do you think you could concentrate on making one--just one? Once you're personally familiar with the concept, you might get a handle on the name for it.

Posted by: shortstop on March 24, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Will someone please isolate the questions that should have been asked, and answered honestly, before the Iraq invasion. And quit acting like Chicken Little just because Karl Rove wants you to.

Some of the questions: How long will it actually take Iran to produce anything like an atomic bomb? What delivery mechanisms will they have when they do produce it (not much in the way of missles, so to endanger the US, they will have to rely on delivery by ship or something)? How much of a danger do they pose of use of their bombs compared to India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and others?

And so on. The failure to address these questions in any way that amounts to more than the usual propaganda should raise red flags with everyone. Once again, it appears that the Administration is using foreign policy for domestic political purposes. And if it's not, then it should be addressing the kinds of questions I mention above (but it's not, of course).

Posted by: David in NY on March 24, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

I'm so sorry shortstop, I had no idea how sensitive you were to spelling. I don't want to offend you in anyway so here:

friend

Again so sorry, do you need any government assistance to help you out with your angst? Or maybe some government paid therapy? I am sure there is something the government can do for you, I'll look into it.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone doubt that there will be some sort of confrontation with Iran (most likely an attack) before the key election runup in October 2006?

W

Posted by: George W. Bush on March 24, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

"Thirty Seconds over Jay's Keyboard" wouldn't waste as much fuel.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 24, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

"Once again it appears the administration is using foreign policy for domestic political purposes" - David in NY.

What political purposes are you talking about exactly David? The constant second-guessing and personal attacks that have come the administrations way for taking a stance on Iraq? The constant ridicule for "alienating" our allies and ignoring the peoblems here at home? You mean those purposes? Because i am sure the administration enjoys all of that, everyday and is actively seeking to bring more scorn upon themselves.

If the administration was so concerned about "domestic political purposes", they would not be LEADING and instead would be governing by the polls. You remember how that was done back in the 90's?

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

come on now jay da gobermint be paying u to be sitting on your ass in front of da keybored mann.so dont be talkin no shit mann.

Posted by: Neo on March 24, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone doubt that there will be some sort of confrontation with Iran (most likely an attack) before the key election runup in October 2006

Mmmm, does there have to be? Or would just pretending that there's an escalating crisis keep the Chicken Little (snaps to David) media so busy it can't think about things like Bush's Excellent Iraqi Civil War Adventure, GOP criminality and corruption, plummeting poll numbers...you get the idea.

Posted by: shortstop on March 24, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

what's a peoblem is that like a skin condition mann.

Posted by: Neo on March 24, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

You remember how that was done back in the 90's?

Ah yes, the 90s, that dark decade of peace and prosperity. It was, truly, a savage time. How wonderful that we've left that behind for our glorious new era of perpetual war and increasing debt to the Communist Chinese!

Posted by: Stefan on March 24, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Three comments:

1) "U.S. experts have concluded..." Unfortunately, for most of the world, now this means "please disregard whatever claptrap follows..."

2) It's all irrelevant. The US can't do anything now, our military is tied down and we're facing a much bigger adversary.

3) Our military is more or less a hostage in Iraq. If we attack Iran, the Iranians can unleash a much more direct assault on our troops there, either directly or conjunction with Shiite militias. I fear repeat of the Korean War, where our troops were slaughtered by the Chinese counter-attack.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on March 24, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Good morning, Jay. Fuck you. Now go somewhere else, you've been insulted here (which is the only conceivable reason you come.)

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 24, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Neo, is obviously a product of our successful NEA approach to education.

Aw yes the 90's, when we carpet-bombed foreign countries killing "who-knows" how many people because we didn't actually want to commit troops. And when we invade private residences in the US and kill women and children all in the quest of trying to capture some mad man wanted on a small weapons charge and when we took that a step further and invaded a private residence in the middle of the night to snatch and child from the arms of their guardian to send that child back to communism and when we spent hours trying to define the meaning of the word "is" while Al Qaeda was attacking embassies, ships and the WTC. Those were good times.

BTW, where is that UHC program that Hillary promised?

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

3) Our military is more or less a hostage in Iraq

Yep. During the hostage crisis the Iranians had 44 American hostages. Now, thanks to Bush, they have 150,000. We can only hold on in Iraq under Shia sufferance, a sufferance they will withdraw the second we move against Iran.

Posted by: Stefan on March 24, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Am I not welcome in the big liberal tent that embraces diversity?

Ace, I am disappointed but do enjoy watching you get your feathers ruffled.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Gen Casey will be surprised to learn that he is a hostage. I guess this is what the liberals mean by "supporting the troops", having absolutely zero confidence in their ability to wage war against towel-headed car bombers. And you guys want to be in charge of National Security?

"We support the troops, not the mission; well kind of. We actually supported the troops before we didn't support them" Now that's a campaign slogan.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Aw yes the 90's, when we carpet-bombed foreign countries

Lie. We didnt't carpet any country in the 90s, excpet perhaps in the pedophile Jay's lurid fantasies.

And when we invade private residences in the US and kill women and children all in the quest of trying to capture some mad man wanted on a small weapons charge

And another stirring defense of raping and impregnating 12 year old girls from the pedophile Jay!

Al Qaeda was attacking embassies, ships and the WTC.

Al Qaeda did not attack the WTC in the 90s. The 1993 attack was not Al Qaeda, as Al Qaeda didn't really exist at the time.

Posted by: Stefan on March 24, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Whew, thank God NSA cleared that whole "Iran threat" thing up for us. Please get in touch with Israel and let them know that they can sleep peaceful at night with nukes in Iran, for the intellectually superior NSA Mole is convinced that they mean them no harm. I am sure glad that is behind us.

Well, since I'm not Israeli, that's not really my concern. Nor should it be the concern for Bush, or the government of the United States.

Israel is quite capable of taking care of itself. It's conventional military and nuclear stockpile is far more advanced than anything any country in the Middle East, or Iran, can throw at them.

Is that all you neo-cons have? "What about Israel?!?" Seriously, you have to have more than that to convince Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in between that Iran is a "grave threat."

Facts. Proof. Evidence. C'mon, something more than talking points, fuck-knuckle.

Now, what do we do about that abortion ban in South Dakota?

Nothing, it is an issue best left to each state. Read your Constitution.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 24, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone doubt that there will be some sort of confrontation with Iran (most likely an attack) before the key election runup in October 2006?

Not Homer J

Posted by: ckelly on March 24, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

3rd Paul: "Thirty Seconds over Jay's Keyboard" wouldn't waste as much fuel.

Good one.

Am I not welcome in the big liberal tent that embraces diversity?

Diversity, yes. Disingenuous Bushtards, no.

shortstop, my bud...Yow!

You're not in office!
"Heh! Heh-itty heh," gloats Troll.
Same shit now Friday.

Iraq! Iran! War!
Same-o tired refrain gets old.
We've seen this before.

Turning the corner,
Cheney said, "...in the last throes."
We don't trust Big Lies.

"Stay the course!" Bush sung.
Down into graves soldiers fall.
Look! Over there! Nukes! ; )

Have no clue about
National security.
Po' wittle wepubs.


Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 24, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Jay is back to try to score points against Clinton (psst, he's not President, Jay) by defending David Koresh. To borrow from Gregory, Shame on you Jay.

Posted by: ckelly on March 24, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Gen Casey will be surprised to learn that he is a hostage. I guess this is what the liberals mean by "supporting the troops", having absolutely zero confidence in their ability to wage war against towel-headed car bombers. And you guys want to be in charge of National Security?

"We support the troops, not the mission; well kind of. We actually supported the troops before we didn't support them" Now that's a campaign slogan.
Posted by: Jay


This is exactly what I mean, Jay. It's clear you don't come here to respond to posts, since you intentionally misinterpret them. You don't come here to give insights into Georgie's behavior: you just parrot talking points. So you must come here for abuse, since you so consistently get it.

So, I'll try again. Jay, you are an ignorant, lying, unamerican bottom-feeder. Now, go!

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 24, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

"But suddenly we are told that Iran is the number one threat."

Huh? When did they become the number one threat? I always thought the biggest threat to the world was white male, Christian, Republicans.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 24, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

We didn't carpet bomb Bosnia? Wow, it's too bad Milosevic is dead, he would be heartened by that news.

And then I guess it is OK to invade private US residences and kill women and children because of alleged child molestation. That's a fine addition to the Democratic rule of law playbook.

Al Qaeda didn't exist in 90's? WOW!!!! They sure put together one hell of an organization then in one year? When exactly did they organize Steffy? 2000? So they organized, planned and executed the world's most heinous terrorist act all in one year? The democrats could learn a lot from Al Qaeda seeing that they haven't been able to accomplish much in the past forty years.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

I just come here to mock and taunt the loser liberals Ace. I know I shouldn't, but it is a lot of fun. Don't get your panties in such a bunch over it.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

That's the campaign slogan!!!!!

The greatest threat of our time; White Christian Republican Males!!!!

Well done freedom fighter.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

We didn't carpet bomb Bosnia?

No, we didnt' carpet bomb Bosnia. Just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true.

Al Qaeda didn't exist in 90's?

No, they didn't exist in 1993. The organization we now know as Al Qaeda came into being in the mid-90s, somewhere around 1995.

Posted by: Stefan on March 24, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Back to the topic at hand. Bush really has screwed the pooch on Iran. The US has zero credibility globally now regarding "threats", US intelligence reports, etc. Bush has overextended us militarily against a fake threat in Iraq so we have much less leverage now toward Iran. It will take global diplomacy to reign in Iran - something that Bush does not possess. History will trash the Bush administration - W really is challenging for worst President ever.

Posted by: ckelly on March 24, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

There is an angle to why Iran is just now going nuclear ... they have thrown off the IAEA and strated up the enrichment because they believe that Bush has been weakened and see it as their only opportunity. What have the lefties done but precipitate another confrontation.

The Iranian Mullahs see this as their opening, turned their enrichment on high .... They will be proved wrong.

Posted by: 10ksnooker on March 24, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

The US has zero credibility globally now regarding "threats", US intelligence reports, etc.

That's it in a nutshell. No matter what we say, no one believes us -- and rightly so. At this point we could have genuine live footage of an Iranian nuclear test and 90% of the world would think it was staged by the White House. It's tough to get people on your side when you're a proven congenital liar.

Posted by: Stefan on March 24, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Great observation 10ksnooker.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

David Koresh was a great martyr, second only to Jesus.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Challenging?

Name a worse president.

Posted by: lina on March 24, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

"W really is challenging for worst President ever."

I didn't think it's possible to take that crown from Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 24, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

This is just so fabulous. It's like giving them carte blanche to steal whatever they want.
Posted by: cld

Using, no doubt, their nifty new 'made in China' Lenovo computers...

Posted by: CFShep on March 24, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a completely impotent loser who makes women vomit, so I spend all day here like a fucking idiot, blabbering nonsense about Clinton because my hero Bush is a complete failure with a 36% approval rating.

I am pathetic and desperate. Pity me.

And don't forget Ruby Ridge!

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

All the United States has left is a military. It imports most of its energy needs and vast majority of its manufactured goods. Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley points out The net national saving rate the combined saving of individuals, businesses, and the government sector after adjusting for depreciation fell into negative territory to the tune of -1.2 per cent of national income in late 2005. America borrows about $3 billion every business day. This money is what is used for the meager growth the US now has, not indigenous investment. It is now a bastion of consumption, including the Iraq war, on borrowed money. The US will now try to inflate itself out of this predicament. This is no empire and it certainly is not the US of 1950.

If the creditors get tired of neocon lectures and US nationalism they will simply stop paying for the US. We are already seeing threats of this from the Saudis and the UAE. It is a fantastically flawed strategy to attack the Arabs. The petroleum producing nations are Americans dual creditors, they agree to hold dollar reserves since Nixon promised to protect their regimes in the early 70s and they buy American debt. In return Americans tell them they cant buy American property with the dollars they have sitting in their banks and they must learn to love Israel. All the while the military is fighting an unwinnable and unpopular war in Mesopotamia. Far from stabalizing the region and turning it into Laguna Beach East, the US is creating threats and instability. It will take some time for change to occur but the world realizes Americans need them more than they need the US.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 24, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

"W really is challenging for worst President ever."

I didn't think it's possible to take that crown from Jimmy Carter.

It's already a done deal. Just keep screaming "Clinton!" and maybe we can distract everyone.

CLINTON!!!

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

HOW MANY TIMES IGNORED BY ALL ??

IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE THE FIRST AGENDA
OUR SECURITY WAS SET ASIDE BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Study alleges US sets aside own security interest for Israel's

Research paper by two leading academics on US-Israel relationship ignites controversy.

Christian Science Monitor.com http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0321/dailyUpdate.html

A research paper by two leading American political scientists alleges that the US relationship with Israel is not good for US security, and that the Israeli lobby in the US, particularly the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, has helped exaggerate to the US media and public the importance of making the protection of Israel a key part of US foreign policy.

John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science and a co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School, published their paper, "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," on the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University website. A shorter version was also published by the London Review of Books.

Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt question the relationship between the two allies right from the beginning of the paper:

The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering US support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security.

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.

The 81-page paper then says that the "overall thrust of US policy in the region is due almost entirely to US domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'" .

Please go to link for this full article with its interesting links.

The Bush administration,
Republican Party, Department of defense,
Military Commanders,
all give-us , the American People the same rhetoric,
and stick to the same agenda.
That being ,we the American People ,who are paying the Bills for the
actions of the few in Washington, are stuck
on stupid, have no idea
of what is really going on, should not have any apposing ideals from them.
We should not expect the truth from government,
that government need not be accountable to the people.
That once in power, regardless of the fraud used to get there, no one need question the abuses of power by any member
of their organizations.
It seems congress is very
accepting of that, but I
really believe the American people are about ready to pull the
rug out from under a few
butts that put themselves
on such a pedestal.

We disagree with the War, the control of our government by AIPAC & Israel. We could care less if Israel remains a state or not, we care
about America, Katrina victims, our people in
poverty, our education
level, why should we be supporting the WELFARE
state of Israel? We did
not cause their problems, they created
their own and NEED TO DEAL WITH IT THEMSELVES. They would
make peace with their neighbors if they didn't have the USA DOING THEIR DIRTY WORK.
They do nothing but "TAKE " & "TAKE" ,what
have they ever given to benefit another. How have they treated their neighbors. They have stolen from all, pushed and bullied, and killed.
Continually at odds letting the USA settle all disputes to their benefit while crying
discrimination.
My question is, how is it they can always fool the
American Government,
but no one else falls
for the bull crap.
Now we are broke again ,
and need to go further in debt to continue bailing
Israel out.
The end is coming soon ,
Americans will protest ,riot, demonstrate for our own causes. Let Israel be China,s allie. They have been selling all our defense systems to them
any-how. Of course behind the scenes, how else does an Israeli operate.

The issues facing this country are many and they are grave, but, these issues are only (manufactured) distractions that are dividing us, while the very wealthy and powerful steal us blind and lead us into economic slavery. All issues, distractions and controversy is good for them because it keeps us busy while they get on with their real agenda.

The only issue should be, our elected officials are no longer listening to us. They are not listening because they do not care about your problems or your issues. They care only about maintaining their power and wealth, and to hell with America and Americans. They are not patriots. Many were derelict and sat out the war of their generation on deferment. Those that did are Chicken Hawks. And now that they have sold us out. They are traitors.

To them we are nothing but rubes caught up in their shell game, to be fleeced. Our young men are cannon fodder for their global ambitions of a one world government (New World Order) which they will rule for their own ends.

If it sounds far fetched we only need remember all the men in history who have tried to enslave the world Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao ect., but, this is not one man, its a whole class of multinational corporations, of aristocrats and social elitists that have been with us since the beginning of human history and have always strived to enslave others.

Our only hope is the ballot box. We must vote out every incumbent in our national, state and local elections. We must wake up and revolt. We must put aside differences (issues that they manipulate to divide us) and as one voice shout ENOUGH! And we must continue to vote them out every election cycle until anyone of us that wants to lead, will get the message, We are fed up with corruption, cronyism, no-bid contracts, corporate welfare, the agenda for globalization, free trade, and a New World Order.
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.
Remember how victims of
Katrina have been treated. Victims of flooding Clyde, NC and many more.
Government toward Health
Care. Cost of Drugs.
Out-Sourcing. Street Drugs. Crime rates.Immigration, border control. Property rights.
Search and seizure. Eves-dropping. Security-theirs
or ours.?????????
WHO'S GOVERNMENT
AND AMERICA IS THIS..
WE BETTER SHOW IT NOW !!

WHAT IF ANYTHING HAS BEEN DONE FOR "DOMESTIC--AMERICA AND AMERICANS ?? (ANYTHING)
The Bush administration continues an escalating spiral toward conflict with Iran, using Iran's nuclear policy as its primary focus. At the same time, the administration is reducing restrictions on other emerging nuclear states that pose a far more serious and immediate threat to world peace.

What the Bush administration is not telling Americans is that while it is directing attacks and calling for sanctions against Iran, it is touting meaningless nuclear containment efforts on the one hand and is consciously ignoring illegal and far more dangerous nuclear weapons development on the other. None of this is being done to guarantee public safety, but rather for partisan political reasons.

Finally, Israel has a robust nuclear weapons arsenal and is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, with nary a word of disapproval from Washington.

But, oh, those mad mullahs in Iran! From the rhetoric pouring out of the Bush administration, one would think that they constitute the greatest nuclear threat on the planet.

The Iranian program, in comparison to so many others, is less developed and less dangerous. It is ironic that the United States propelled Iran on a nuclear course years ago, urging them to sink billions into a handful of energy-producing reactors which we now demand they dismantle. Iran has specifically renounced the development of nuclear weapons, and is a signatory to the most stringent nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Even if Iran wanted to develop nuclear weaponry, the CIA estimates that it would take years before anything of any significance could be produced.

The Bush administration's pursuit of Iran on this issue is counter- productive, and may become deadly dangerous. Through its exclusive targeting of Iran, leading perhaps to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Bush administration is not making the world a safer place.

If Iran chooses to answer these attacks, it is not likely to be in a way that will improve prospects for peace in the Middle East, or in the rest of the world.

A military strike by Israel against Iran's reactors is a possibility, despite the fact that such a strike is fraught with great risk.
The silliest example of "progress" in nuclear containment is that of
Israel. A great deal of countries
around the World think Israel's
weapons arsenal, constitutes
the greatest nuclear threat on the planet. IAEA is being defyed
around the World because Israel
is the key proliferation problem.
All know that sanctions are useless against Israel, because of
the control they have on the American government & congress.
Iran is a signatory to the most stringent nuclear nonproliferation agreements, Israel signatory to none, and get away with it. HOW ?
Ask Bush, congress, AIPAC or any other member of the organized crime Bosses.
Cheney and Halliburton could
shine the most light on it, but
no one bites the HAND that
feeds them.
The United States has pushed Iran so hard and with such discriminatory prejudice that the leadership of the Islamic Republic has shown itself willing to partially act against their own interests to rescue Iran's national honor.
Threats from the United States, and Israel are met with escalating defiance by Iran.
Bush's agreement with Israel,to send 500 "bunker buster" BLU-109 bombs, presumably to attack Iranian nuclear facilities has only served to further infuriate the Iranians.


Posted by: RONALD L. WALDRON on March 24, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

"That's it in a nutshell. No matter what we say, no one believes us -- and rightly so."

Since the US is the only nation that is actually capable of doing anything substantive, whether anyone believe us or not, doesn't make much difference, does it?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 24, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Challenging?
Name a worse president.

Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: ckelly on March 24, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

If the creditors get tired of neocon lectures and US nationalism they will simply stop paying for the US. We are already seeing threats of this from the Saudis and the UAE. It is a fantastically flawed strategy to attack the Arabs. The petroleum producing nations are Americans dual creditors, they agree to hold dollar reserves since Nixon promised to protect their regimes in the early 70s and they buy American debt. In return Americans tell them they cant buy American property with the dollars they have sitting in their banks and they must learn to love Israel. All the while the military is fighting an unwinnable and unpopular war in Mesopotamia. Far from stabalizing the region and turning it into Laguna Beach East, the US is creating threats and instability. It will take some time for change to occur but the world realizes Americans need them more than they need the US.

CLINTON!!!

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

You're a complete tool Jay. Instead of reading all the Koresh conspiracies, why don't you read the official ones. Koresh was served various subpoenas. He refused. ATF had intel that he would shoot anyone trying to enforce the subpoenas. Lo and behold - he did.

He started it asshole, not the Feds. And guess what, he initiated the rape of the 12 year old girls, not the children. Or did the children just have it coming?

Wow. You neo-con trolls just love throwing around subpoenas when trying to trash a lib like Clinton. However, when a law-breaking pedophile refuses them, he's the new fucking poster boy for the GOP.

Congrats. Hope you feel the same way if some douchebag rapes your daughter.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 24, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Variation on 'liberals murdered tinkerbell by not clapping' ploy:

There is an angle to why Iran is just now going nuclear ... they have thrown off the IAEA and strated [sic] up the enrichment because they believe that Bush has been weakened and see it as their only opportunity. What have the lefties done but precipitate another confrontation.

Because if we all embraced Miserable Failure's miserable failure, Iran would be too scared to piss without permission, right?

This is followed by the proof that this thread has the dumbest trolls EVAH!

Great observation 10ksnooker.

Get a room, you two.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on March 24, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

"'made in China' Levnovo computers"

Ah, so much to learn about Chinese Dynasties. The Xia, Shang, Yin, Zhou, Qin, many others and now the Wal-Mart.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 24, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Since the US is the only nation that is actually capable of doing anything substantive, whether anyone believe us or not, doesn't make much difference, does it?

The difference it does make is that every such action is progressively more costly, leaves us with less leverage, and has helped strengthen opposing regimes/weaken friendly governments (democracy! peeance! freeance!). The Clancyesque jerk-fest of the last few years has been very, very expensive, but only in the real world.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on March 24, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Truly a shame about that White House tour back in 96; Jay took her kneepads, but to no avail. Bill was away. Hates him to this day.

Posted by: stupid git on March 24, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

"... Bush has been weakened... What have the lefties done..."

Absolutely ROFL. Even SMTN (Snorted milk through nose).

The Bush regime has been er... 'weakened' by their own actions... the public is beginning to get a (faint) glimmer that it's been fed a steady diet lies and deceit.

'"Lefties' fault I reckon... or maybe that mythical 'Liberal Media'. Pesky nuisance to the regime, telling the truth.

Unfortunately, I think Bush II will do whatever it [sic] wants... public support or not.

Posted by: Buford on March 24, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

I miss Pale Rider and Secular_Animist.
"They told me Iraq was between six months and six years away from having nuclear weaponry; I could not take a chance on six months." --NY Senator explaining vote for the authorization to use force against Iraq.

Posted by: Cassandro on March 24, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

The great thing about reading the posts in this blog is to see the hysteria on the left.

"Everybody hates the USA!" "We are doomed!" "Bush has ruined the country!" "Nobody believes us!" "The economy has collapsed, all we have left is the military!" "Reagan armed Saddam!"

What a collection of Eyores and defeatists in here!

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 24, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

All the United States has left is a military.

Shades of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Hollowed out economically and ideologically, it was able to hold onto power for a decade more because of its military might, until it over-extended itself in a futile land war against Islamic guerrillas in Asia.

Posted by: Stefan on March 24, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Koresh started it? Well then why all of the outrage over Tookie Williams execution, he started it didn't he? And then wouldn't the death penalty then be acceptable in every murder case, afterall they started it right?

It's all they have left Kenneth, a supreme case of self loathing.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

"All the US has left is a military"?

We have our liberals, the world's intellectual elite. Isn't that enough to save us?

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

"The difference it does make is that every such action is progressively more costly, leaves us with less leverage, and has helped strengthen opposing regimes/weaken friendly governments (democracy! peeance! freeance!)."

If that's the case, then how about we move the money currently spent on 25% of the UN budget to do what we want?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 24, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

We have our liberals, the world's greatest intellectual elite. They can save us.
Posted by: Jay on his knees

Sounds like a t-shirt to me I 'll donate the proceeds to Cindy Shenan (sp)?

Posted by: Neo on March 24, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I just come here to mock and taunt the loser liberals Ace. I know I shouldn't, but it is a lot of fun. Don't get your panties in such a bunch over it.
Posted by: Jay

But Jay, you're not witty or interesting or accurate!
I've had enough of trying to squeeze some humanity out of you.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 24, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

That's the campaign slogan!!!!!

The greatest threat of our time; White Christian Republican Males!!!!

This is a paraphrase of what the neocon cult founder Strauss has written- There is no need to crawl to the cross.

Posted by: bblog on March 24, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

White Christian Republican Males!!!! with teeny weenies so when I tells them to shove it they got something handy mann

Posted by: Neo on March 24, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

oh I think you'll be back for more abuse Ace.

Posted by: Jay on March 24, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Let me be more clear. Stephen Roach, Chief Economist at Morgan Stanley, from a speech he made at the China Development Forum in Beijing a few days ago:

There is a very simple and extremely powerful macro point that is being overlooked in this debate: America no longer has the internal wherewithal to fund the rapid growth of its economy. Suffering from the greatest domestic saving shortfall in modern history, the United States is increasingly dependent on surplus foreign saving to fill the void. The net national saving rate the combined saving of individuals, businesses, and the government sector after adjusting for depreciation fell into negative territory to the tune of -1.2 per cent of national income in late 2005. That means America doesn't save enough even to cover the replacement of its worn-out capital stock. This is a first for the United States in the modern post-World War II era, and I believe a first for any great power over a much longer sweep of world history.

Faced with a shortfall of domestic saving, countries basically have two choices to curtail economic growth or borrow from the rest of the world. The first option just doesn't cut it in the land of abundance.

America, in general, and its consumers, in particular, treat rapid economic growth as an entitlement. That leaves the United States with little choice other than to pursue the second option - drawing heavily on the global saving pool in order to fund economic growth. Once the United States started down the slippery path of consuming beyond its internal means, it got harder and harder to break the habit. Ironically, it has become exceedingly difficult for Washington to accept the consequences of that habit - a nation that has become beholden both to external funding and production. And yet that's exactly how China fits into America's macro equation.

That underscores a key attribute of the savings-short, deficit nation: It is forced to run current account deficits in order to attract the requisite foreign capital. And in the case of the United States, where external funding needs are so massive - now closing in on US$800 billion per year, or about US$3 billion per business day - most of the current account imbalance shows up in the form of a huge trade deficit. In 2005, the trade deficit in goods and services accounted for fully 93 per cent of the total current-account gap.

He just happens to be coming home via Dubai.

China is deeply troubled over the outright hostility from an increasingly xenophobic US Congress. The senior officials I spoke with this week in Beijing protested on two counts -- Chinas fragility and Americas penchant for scapegoating (see my 21 March dispatch, Inside the China Debate). On the first count, the Chinese dont believe that US politicians appreciate the potential risks that still lurk in this transitional economy. Instead, they are pressuring China as if it were operating from a position of much greater strength....

In Dubai, I was met by a similar sense of consternation. Fresh from the wounds of the rejected Dubai Ports World transaction, several major private equity investors in the UAE were blunt in expressing their sudden loss of appetite for US assets. As one seasoned investor in US companies and properties put it to me, As practitioners, as investors, we have become very shy of the US -- we just turned down a recent deal for that very reason. Another added, For us, foreign direct investment into the US has become far less palatable due to recent developments. The bulk of our dedicated offshore money is now going elsewhere. The comment that unnerved me the most took this exasperation to an even deeper level. One investor asked, What can we do to push back, to send a signal?

Posted by: bellumregio on March 24, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, dear, it's only abuse if a) it's even remotely based on anything resembling reality and b) anyone cares. Alas, you fail on both counts, but you are highly entertaining, so that counts for something.

Do tell us more about the "faith" you have about Iraq, won't you? And I'd just love to hear more about how we're terrorists' bitches.

Posted by: PaulB on March 24, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Number one threat without a Nuke. Once they have a Nuke, you can't do squat about it e.g. Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Russia"

So why is a nuclear Iran such a threat again? Oh yeah, they spew hateful rhetoric for internal consumption, which of course means the first nuke they build will be landing in Chicago in...10 years? 3 years? 6 months? OH MY GOD, HERE IT COMES!

What a bunch of bed-wetting pussies you rightwingers are.


Posted by: brewmn on March 24, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

"...the hysteria on the left.

"Everybody hates the USA!"

Well, "Everybody" is a big word, obviously an exaggeration... however the fact is that global perceptions of the US in a favorable light have plummetted to record lows. The positive 'capital' following 9/11 has been blown away and sent into the tank.

Next:

"We are doomed!"

If we don't learn to act cooperatively with other nations on critical problems like global, population growth, arms control, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere... this is absolutely true. Acting alone (or lack of any action) will be disasterous.

Next:

"Bush has ruined the country!"

Well... admittedly, he hasn't been able to do this single-handedly, he's had the cooperation of a republican congress.

Trade deficits at a record high, budget deficits at record, middle class on the ropes, schools at the bottom of the barrel, poverty levels up, collapsing health care system, over-extended military, lack of credibility in the world... did I miss anything?

Next:

"Nobody believes us!" Again 'Nobody' is a big word... better phrased as "most of the worlds governments and people no longer believe the Bush regime".

Phrased that way, a fact. Tell too many lies and that's what happens over time.


Next:

"The economy has collapsed, all we have left is the military!"

The economy is currently being sustained by borrowed money... and is living on borrowed time. Manufacturing is dead in the US. Our only real export is currency.

The promised salvation of Medical/Technical jobs are rapidly following manufacturing overseas. Replay of Great Britian following WWI.

Next:

"Reagan armed Saddam!"

Well, that's a fact. He also created and armed the Islamic Jihadists... including his poster boy Bin Laden... oh, and Iran too... so he could fund his own private terrorist group, the Contras.

Any other questions?

Posted by: Buford on March 24, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

This is all the GOP has for a 2006 election strategy. Do you think they are big enough risk takers to pull the trigger in a desperate attempt to bolster the GOP at the polls? I do.

Posted by: ChetBob on March 24, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

"W really is challenging for worst President ever."

ff: I didn't think it's possible to take that crown from Jimmy Carter.


try using record debt and the death toll for americans....as the criteria..

gwb wins...

and isnt that the only thing that matters?


Posted by: thispacevailable on March 24, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

This may be the most difficult-to-achieve task the Preznit will accomplish, one previously thought to be impossible in American political life: he makes us nostalgic for Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 24, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Were you around in 1979, Cal Gal? 20% inflation, 20% interest rates. Carter was a great guy.

90% of the comments here suggest that we resolve the Iranian situation by getting rid of the Bush Administration. Does that strike anyone else as a complete disjunct? Sen. Clinton is very concerned about Iranian nuclear capability- as are most Dem senators. Are they ignorant too? From what I read here, there's no threat. Sen. Clinton is rightfully worried about the threat. But that's a minority opinion here. Offer solutions, not Bush hatred.

Posted by: moderatedem on March 25, 2006 at 7:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Again so sorry, do you need any government assistance to help you out with your angst? Or maybe some government paid therapy? I am sure there is something the government can do for you, I'll look into it."

Not everyone shares your life experience of hanging out at the free mental health clinic. There's no need to ask your doctors about this.

"Am I not welcome in the big liberal tent that embraces diversity?"

I don't think our tent is big or diverse enough to hold an unemployed, chickenhawk, illiterate, lying, wannabe fascist pedophile like you, Jerkoff Jay. You've found a perfect home in the Republican Party.

Posted by: solar on March 25, 2006 at 10:11 AM | 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