Ah, Kevin.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but were at war. We must use every option at our disposal. Iran is one of the nations planting the IEDs on the ground in Iraq. They seek to undermine us. That means THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US. Bush was right to issue his capture and kill policy. These people only understand one language: power.

Already we see signs that the Iranians are waving the white flag. That means we may win without never firing a shot. Diplomacy didn't do that, Kevin. Show of POWER did. Iran sees what happened to Iraq and doesn't want that to happen to them.

Bush's response doesnt sound credible; it is more likely that he said 'it all depends on what kind of bomb it is' or 'only the French would drop one bomb'.

From what I've read many of the Iranian people would like better relations with the US. They've experienced living under the Mullahs, and they don't like it.

Meanwhile the Irani government supports the Iraqi insurgents with powerful weapons. They will soon have nukes, which their President implies they will use on Israel.

The challenge is to find a way to take advantage of the potential rapproachment with the Irani people while preventing the Irani government from wreaking havoc in Iraq, Israel, etc. I don't know whether Bush is us to the challenge, nor do I know whether any of the potential Presidential candidates is. I'm afraid that the campaign will focus on minutae, and we voters will have to guess which President could best handle vital foreign policy challenges.

The Iranian leaders are not that dumb. Why would they risk a nuclear strike on Israel? It's all bark and very little bite. Of course Smirk treats it as all bark, which is scary.

Egbert,

I try to keep up with such things but I am not familiar with any developments in Iraq or elsewhere which suggest that Iran is “waving the white flag�. Could you please specify individually those things which you see as “waving the white flag�?

I don't mean to be snippy but if you don’t identify the specific facts upon which you base what seems to me to be a quite remarkable conclusion, it is impossible to meaningfully debate whether you are right that Bush’s “capture and kill policy� has indeed caused the Iranians to “waive the white flag�.

Thanks.

Anyone who is at all surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.
Bush and his claque do not want a peaceful, unthreatening, non-nuclear-armed Iran any more than they wanted a peaceful, non-WMD-armed Iraq. They could have had that (a peaceful and cooperative Iran, that is) several times over by now, and chose otherwise -- deliberately, and with malice aforethought.
Their only remaining claim to power -- the only claim they ever had that actually worked for anyone beyond the psychotic 30%-ers -- is as our protectors from teh Bad Guys.
What possible need have we for the insanity of the Bush putsch if there are no Bad Guys threatening to kill us all?
There was an ancient Pogo strip in which one of the less-regular characters came thru the Okefenokee selling snake-bite antidote. When Pogo or Porkypine or some such pointed out that nobody there had ever been bitten by a snake, the clever huckster brought out the snake he'd carefully packed and brought with to ensure the need for a snake-bite remedy.
Those are our "leaders." They want nothing more than to create more snakes in our grass, and at that they are succeeding admirably. They are truly not lying one bit when they say that the way things have gone in Iraq is not, to them, a failure -- it is doing exactly what it was designed to do: create more terrists.
And egbrat, pls note that the Bush admin has pointedly refused to provide any concrete data to support their claims of Iranian interference in Iraq. It is not a coincidence that the terms that are being thrown around are identical to those that were being bandied about to rationalize the Iraq invasion, ALL of which were utterly disproved after the fact -- AND repeatedly admitted to be wrong by Mr Bush himself (though Cheney still pulls our chains as he always did).
As Mr Bush himself says, "fool me once shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Mr Bush is calling you a fool, egbat. You gonna take that from him?
Yeh, I thought so. Punk.

...but perhaps some serious reporter type person will call Shehabi...

If I were a serious reporter type person, I'd do that. I'm not, however, and in the unlikely event he were even to take my call, much less seriously entertain the question on the record, I wouldn't be able to publish the answer anywhere that gets more than 25 hits per week.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if somebody at the fscking Washington Monthly with a high-traffic weblog were to do this?

Zomg. Nice way to insult the intelligence of your readers, Kevin.

Somebody's gotta nip this stuff in the bud. Maybe somebody like me.

egbert: "Iran is one of the nations planting the IEDs on the ground in Iraq. They seek to undermine us. That means THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US."

Fine. By the same token, the US was responsible for shooting down Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan (by proxy), so the USSR would've been justified in launching a retaliatory strike on, say, Texas. But they didn't. Why not? Proportionality.

Egbert, prove it.

"Perhaps you don't realize it, but were at war."

Great, egfart. Glad to hear it's over!

"That means we may win without never firing a shot."

Yeah, why take a break now? The bullets are all paid for—by us!

posted: "I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

The president chuckled and walked away.

think he chuckled because he's tired of hearing that..

or because..

he wishes he could walk away...

or both..

I'm sure the gravity of the Persian gentleman's comment didn't even register with Bush, or else he simply doesn't care. You have to remember we are talking about a man with brain damage caused by long-term cocaine and alcohol abuse. The neurons aren't firing like a normal person's do.

Based on Bush's public statements the report has a ring of truth. The chuckle indicates that Bush doesn't believe Cheney gives a rip. He will do anything necessary to insure record oil company profits.

Remember, Bush is an accidental President. He isn't up to the job either intellectually or more importantly by virtue of his temperament and background. He is at the mercy of his handlers.

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/407.html

Worth reading this article weighing potential for war with Iran, in addition to the anti-Iran propaganda we are hearing.
Good quote from Keith Olbermann included, who compared this administration to a totally inebriated guy who, beaten to the ground, asks who the next one is that wants a beating.

"I don't know how reliable de Borchgrave is".....
Look him up on Source Watch, and then ask yourself whether it's wise to trust this item.

"but perhaps some serious reporter type person will call Shehabi next week and ask if this conversation really happened. "

How about you, Kevin? I don't think one needs a license!

The President was trying to be polite and humor Shehabi.

Cheney has a more spontaneous, less guarded personality and was chuckling at the man's naiveté.

Thank you for your insightful comment, egbert.

It's important to keep in mind that ONLY the United States has the right to invade other countries, overthrow their governments and otherwise meddle in their internal affairs. If countries who border the country we've invaded try to meddle in those affairs, they must also be invaded.

Similarly, it's important to remember than ONLY the United States and a few select other countries have the right to own nuclear weapons. If non-approved countries halfway around the world embark on the development of nuclear weapons (even if they deny it), they must be invaded and attacked, possibly with our own nuclear weapons.

And most of all, it's important to remember that we're AT WAR. Which trumps everything. Even the fact that we started the war.

Bu$h is having fun with all the attack Iran talk. Will he, or won't he? Keep your eye on the bomb!

"Meanwhile the Irani government supports the Iraqi insurgents with powerful weapons. "

"ex-liberal," you stinking liar, prove this assertion or STFU. Thanks in advance.

Let's see. The government of Iraq is Shia. We support the government of Iraq. The insurgents who are killing US soldiers are Sunnis---these were the supporters of Saddam, aka "Saddamist deadenders". Iran is allied with the Iraqi Shi'ites, and was the mortal enemy of Saddam (and his deadenders, aka the present Sunni insurgents). I find it very very hard to believe that Iran is giving IEDs etc to the Sunni. Therefore, I think this is yet another red herring about foreign influence in the Iraq civil war---which has been exaggerated from the beginning.

"And then maybe someone will ask Cheney if he agrees."

Oh Kevin, you're such an optimist. It's really kind of touching to see that you think the press might do its job.

http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm

Dates, precise quotes,videos,links--from this month back through time. The beauty of the internet, exposing truth to power, in black and white.

Dan Froomkin, wapo columnist, offered a white house watch blog, 2/9/07 contrasting their recent inconsistent statements, hinting at the lame duckness, and quotes reporter Peter Baker..."With no campaign at stake, Cheney's influence within the white house, though still potent, has clearly diminished. Presidential aides are no longer as intimidated by Cheney's staff, some who have seen the VP lately say he seems personally down." Plus he noted the veep's combative and frustrated presentation in the recent CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.
Maybe so, but I would never trust that Cheney is down and out.

I read where Alaededin Boroujerdi, head of the foreign policy/national security parliament committee in Iran, said his country plans to continue cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency and would remain a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In response to the resolution 12/23 with sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council banning trade related to Iran's nuclear program -- and a March '07 deadline to halt its uranium enrichment program--Boroujerdi said "the committee has decided to bar 38 inspectors from coming to Iran, and we have announced the new limitation to the agency."
But this was in the New York Times--and we know the part they played pushing the administration's case for war prior to the start of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Nope. This all sounds way too much like the run up to the Iraq war

Perhaps the President chuckled because Soroush Shehabi had made a joke. He was perhaps mocking the silly people who imagine that Bush is not in charge.

in a rapidly changing world, the consistent stupidity of egbert and ex-liberal - the utter cluelessness of it, the willingness to spout the latest right-wing moronic drivel, the sheer predictability of their ignorance - is heartening!

but i actually posted to note that we can't really believe this amusing anecdote, because there is nothing that bush knows.

there you go, ex-liberal: proof of my point! totally predictable nitwittery at 11:21.

bush is so in charge that...he magically only does the things that cheney wants.

Al writes "Cheney has a more spontaneous, less guarded personality and was chuckling at the man's naiveté."

Al, you need to re-read the report. The chuckler was definitely Bush.

As for Cheney's "more spontaneous, less guarded" personality, one can only ask, with incredulity & dread - less guarded & more spontaneous than WHO?

Stalin? J Edgar Hoover? Pinochet? The Grim Reaper?

I guess in that parallel right wing universe, where Cheney is a chuckling, unguarded, spontaneous guy, Anne Coulter is a sexy biological female, George Bush is a shrewd, down to earth Texan, McCain is a fearless maverick & Rev Haggard is cured of his gayness?

Neat.

You guys could definitely teach Joan Didion a thing or two about "magical thinking"...

Iran supposedly supplying the IED's is just Bush using Iran as a wag the dog to take people's mind off the huge cluster_uck his neo-cons have created in Iraq. Nothing more, nothing less. Why would Iran put serial numbers that could be traced back to them on IED's? Thats not logical, Gates might be as dumb as Rummy and I didn't think that was possible. As far as neo-con reports of the Mahdi Army standing down for the "surge". No they are joining the police and army and can be trained and armed by american taxpayers, while keeping their loyalty to Al Sadr. Sorry for getting off topic, too much coffee this morning.

The I in IED is improvised. IED's are made on the spot from what is around. Supplying IED's to a terrorist group is contradictory. If it's something you can supply to such a group, it is not an IED because it is not improvised. So either the Pentagon is lying to us about what the weapons are or the Bushies are full of shit.

The president of Iran - a man with no control over actual foreign policy - has made contradictory statements over Israel, everything between the whole "whipe them off the map" to "we have no quarrel with Israel" or whatever the exact translation was. The people in Iran that have actual power have told him to back off and that he will not be allowed near the nuclear program. You also have to ask yourself, who else in the area would be worried about a nuclear Iran? Arab states like Saudi Arabia, which is more repressive than Iran (for instance, Saudi women look to Iranian women as an example of women in the area who have freedoms Saudi women wished they had). Talking about Israel is a way to get the focus off Iran and its Persian-ness and Shia-ness. It's playing to the home crowd, so to speak, on an international level.

Besides, why would Iran nuke Jerusalem, one of the holiest sites in Islam, along with Bethlehem, the birthplace of one of the most revered prophets in Islam Isa (Jesus)? I doubt Allah would be happy if Jerusalem would be glowing green, devoid of life and utterly useless for centuries.

I'm with Dan F. Make the call yourself Kevin!

You work for a journal so you can get the access.

There is no reason for you not to make the phone call and tell us the answer.

Brad DeLong does this on occasion and more bloggers should, especially those that blog behind the mantle of a journal.

Egbert delusional talking point posts backed up by..well.. nothing are indicitive of a paid poster... right wing welfare.

Eggs, just curious (seriously), do you get paid by the post? Or just as long as you make an appearance in each thread covers a salary?

"Meanwhile the Irani government supports the Iraqi insurgents with powerful weapons. "
"ex-liberal," you stinking liar, prove this assertion or STFU. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Gregory on February 11, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Gregory, Even I am willing to grant that the Iranians are probably helping their natural allies the Shia militias. If you notice what "ex-liberal" is doing you realize that he is confusing "Shia militias" with "insurgents." As I understand it, as used in the context of the Iraqi civil war, the term "insurgent" is meant to refer to the Sunnis affiliated with the old regime. I find Iranian help for them to be illogical, not beyond possibility, but illogical.

There are folks on the right who try to exploit the pathetic and hopelessly ignorant view of many in their base that all Muslims are alike. We don't know if "ex-liberal" is just a dumb f**k unable to discern reality, or a cynical manipulator of the dumb f**k base. That he is here trying to manipulate us on Political Animal would seem to be evidence that "ex-liberal"is just a member of the dumb f**ker base. The manipulative people crafting the dumb f**k message wouldn't waste their time here. How do you vote?

On a related subject I notice this morning that the Washington Post ran a story indicating that the Iranians have detained a bunch of Al Qaeda types heading for Iraq. That sounds like good news.

I lived most of my life during the Cold War. Various countries did various things to support their natural allies. If the old soviet union had responded to the US providing anti-aircraft weapons to the Taliban and the other Afghanistan fighters the way folks think Dick Cheney wants us to respond to Iran, we would probably all be dead.

Folks, go easy on ex-lib/current-fool.

Yes, he wrote "the Irani government supports the Iraqi insurgents with powerful weapons..."

But what he meant to write was "Al Qa qaa supports the Iraqi insurgents with powerful weapons..."

An honest mistake.

But seriously, ex-lib, it seems that you and your fellow conservatives are missing a wonderful opportunity here. This is what you should be saying:

"Iran is supplying the insurgents with weapons; Venezuela is giving them heating oil; Castro is sending cigars and doctors; Soros is handling the financing, and Michael Moore, he's filming the documentary that Costco plans to sell next year..."

Did I miss anything?

As Rumsfeld said after 9/11: Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.

"The I in IED is improvised. IED's are made on the spot from what is around. Supplying IED's to a terrorist group is contradictory. If it's something you can supply to such a group, it is not an IED because it is not improvised. So either the Pentagon is lying to us about what the weapons are or the Bushies are full of shit..."

Posted by: Reality Man on February 11, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Astute observation! Not only that, but why would you put serial numbers on such things at all anyhow? To recall defective ones and prevent accidental injury by IED planters? To call the manufacturer and complain about the lot of duds that didn't go off? WTF.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001275.html

The article is entitled US Keeps Pressure on Iran but Decreases Saber Rattling.

Despite the denials by Secretary Gates that the administration is preparing for war with Iran, this is from the above link:

"One ambassador in Washington said that he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security advisor, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a US attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article." Karen DeYoung Page 18 WAPO

Dwight,

Good points, but FAUXLib will probably add William Arkin doing the screen play, Alec Baldwin playing the lead and Cindy Sheehan doing a cameo.

But, Lt Gen McInery said that he fought for freedom of speech, but not for anyone "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy. He has also said that Iran could be taken out in a heartbeat. "Bomber Harris" McInery.

egbert: Already we see signs that the Iranians are waving the white flag.

where?

I don’t think we should encourage Egbert by taking him seriously. He is obviously not a real wing-nut, but a liberal masquerading as a wing-nut to make them look stupid. I sympathize with him in that it is easy to make the wing-nuts look stupid, but I really can’t support such a cheap trick.

Are the many amusing spelling errors also part of the trick? They certainly help make the case for wingnut-fresh stupidity much stronger. Along with the fact that he never says anything to defend himself when the rest of us jump on him for being such a pathetic loser.

ex-lib: He was perhaps mocking the silly people who imagine that Bush is not in charge.

"You know there are all these conspiracy theories that Dick runs the country, or Karl runs the country. Why aren't there any conspiracy theories that I run the country?" --President Bush, at the 2006 Gridiron Dinner

prescription drugs - prescription drugs
generic drugs - generic drugs