Given that, to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail, it's time to be afraid. Time to stop the madness. Impeach now.

And, if anyone can figure out what this means:

"And I think for the ability to create stability in that part of the world that not just this alliance, but those who are allied..."

Not a good development.

You think "rational people would never attack Iran". We're not dealing with rational people here. The most recent rational person to be let go was Admiral Fallon.

Now Hillary piles on with her "we will obliterate Iran if ..." comment which is barking mad, in the way that your garden variety apocalypse-preaching televangelist is barking mad. China and Russia have interests in that part of the world.

I feel like I'm rowing up the proverbial creek the last few years. The flow downstream is getting thicker. Oy.

Maybe he needs to be specific as to what exactly Iran has done. Not that this administration has ever mislead us or anything.

I think it's increasingly clear will be attacking Iran. It will make security the issue, and when the networks go all war all the time, McCain can be seen as the hero. They have to do something, since he's at his peak right now while Clinton and Obama keep fighting each other....

Of course, the other option is Syria...

Kevin Drum >"...I wonder what it means to Mullen?"

Explosions, lots & lots of explosions all over the place in Persia. And lots & lots of profits for The Carlyle Group, Halliburton et al not to mention a lot of human blood soaking into the ground.

Total Madness.

"Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords." - Pompey

The Hillary comment is gratuitous. Her's was made in context of a nuke attack on Israel, and response. That has nothing to do what-so-ever with what Mullen said, or the situation on the ground right now.

As usual, we must turn to Pat Buchanan for wisdom.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=980
"What is Tehran’s motive?

Iran, after all, is the principal beneficiary of the U.S. invasion that dethroned its enemy Saddam, ended the Sunni Baath Party’s monopoly of power and opened the door to Shia politicians with strong ties to Tehran. The regime in the Green Zone is the same regime that rolled out a red carpet for President Ahmadinejad.

Why, then, would Iran bloody it up? Why, when things are going Iran’s way in Iraq, would it risk war with the United States over Iraq?

The April 16 Los Angeles Times offers an answer. Iran’s proxy war against us in Iraq may be Tehran’s response to a U.S. proxy war being waged against Iran. Ahmadinejad may be exacting blood for blood.

@Donald: Thank you! I don't know what any of that means. Individually the words all make sense, but it's like a nonsense string of rhyming patterns. Read that first sentence. I mean: huh?

It's sad that I am alive in an era where our country's checks and balances have been proven fatally flawed.

We have an idiot president being controlled by a psychopathic vice-president and a spineless congress.

It's time for a new constitutional convention where we declare that every elected official wears a helmet, and when a certain number of the citizenry presses the impeachment button on their Home Democracy Kit, the official becomes overwhelmed with a pleasing intoxicant before being carted away to a happy home in the woods.

Politicians are too spineless to do what's right.

So, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is trying to up the ante on Darth Cheney, Idiot Bush and John "Bomb, Iran" McCain.

America has evil leadership. They need to be stopped. Iran is not a good country, but it has clear local national interests. We meddled and got burned. Fools that our leaders are, they would rather get burned some more than admit that they screwed up completely.

Time for a Democratic Congress and a Democrat as president. Clearly, Sen. Clinton has decided to become a Lieberman Republican. I hope the Democrats notice.

For God's sake! The man can barely talk.

IMPEACHMENT IS THE ANSWER, but its going to be hard work and take a lot of people.

The president,the vice president,the JCS,the Pentagon and a bunch of bemedaled,beribboned military men (who like it when things go boom,just not near them) think doubling down in the Gulf is a good idea.
83% of the citizens (CBS/NYT 9/07)think diplomacy is the best course.

I wonder which way we'll go?

Give it a rest Mike, okay?

It all makes perfect sense when viewed in the proper context. After all, what are the goals here?

Israeli/Evangelical interests are calling the shots, and their long term goal is expanding Iraeli territory to match the extents of the biblical Jewish empire.

This in turn requires complete neutralization of competing states... Iraq (check), Iran and Syria.

When the empire has been expanded, the mosque known as 'The Dome of the Rock' will be torn down and the temple of Solomon rebuilt. (AKA the 'Third Temple')

In turn, this is the cue for the Christian evangelicals to slaughter an 'ochre' calf on the temple steps... which will trigger Armageddon and the end times.

Unfortunately, I'm not making this up.

The nature of Iran's involvement in Iraq is reported in the news. E.g., the Voice of America reported today

In other news, the U.S. military said coalition forces in Iraq killed four suspected Iranian-trained militants, and captured five others, during operations north of Baghdad.

The military says soldiers battled militants Thursday in Rashidiyah after apprehending a person suspected of receiving weapons and financing from Iran to lead attacks against coalition forces.

As to what Admiral Mullen meant by "deal with Iran", my guess is that he meant "not deal with Iran." Not dealing with Iran has been Bush's policy for a long time now. Despite the provocations of their nuclear development and their military involvement in Iraq, Bush has done nothing against them. My guess is that he will continue to do nothing.

Impeachment is the easy way out for Gilligan and the Skipper!!!

Impeachment is the easy way out for Gilligan and the Skipper!!!

Individually the words all make sense, but it's like a nonsense string of rhyming patterns. Read that first sentence. I mean: huh?

That was my reaction too. And running into "deal with Iran" at the end of that completely unintelligible stream of opaque bureaucratic gobbledygook was another "huh? Where the hell did that come from?" moment.

"The nature of Iran's involvement in Iraq is reported in the news."

Dear heart, all that the various news organizations are doing is regurgitating the latest spin from the Bush administration and from the military, much of which has already been shown to be false. Did you have a point to make?

Good point, PaulB.

The American people need to deal with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Does Mullen mean Iran's assistance to the Maliki government or the Sadrist or what. Far as I can gather, Iran is helping EVERYONE's side in Iraq.

Go on idiots, destroy the US military completely. Start another war. Invade another country. Bankrupt the US. Watch the suicide rate among vets jump to 5000 a month.

Ex-liberal: "Despite the provocations of their nuclear development and their military involvement in Iraq, Bush has done nothing against them. My guess is that he will continue to do nothing."

Maybe even Bush is bright enough to see that we can't start another war, especially with a mountainous country three times the size of Iraq, a country that 60% of Iraq's population sees as a friend and ally.

And, if anyone can figure out what this means:

"And I think for the ability to create stability in that part of the world that not just this alliance, but those who are allied..."

Well, it means those who are allied to the alliance but not part of the Alliance. You know, Members of the Coalition of the Formerly Willing. Like the Solomon Islands, El Salvador...

And Kennebunkport. I forgot about them.

Piehole, if only you'd keep your piehole shut. Then I could continue to pretend that everything is gonna be OK. But it looks like they may be contemplating a little October surprise.

#

The arguments made in 1991 against going on into Baghdad "to finish the war" were that, ultimately, no matter what scenario was played out, Iran would be the big winner. That outcome was considered untenable and no one with any modicum of military or diplomatic perspicacity would entertain such a notion.

So, of course this administration is shocked and surprised by how everything has played out--they are nitwits. Iran is guilty of being Shiite, and being passive beneficiaries of the greatest blunder in modern times. They have watched as American military power and treasure has been squandered relentlessly. Anything the administration does backfires. "We'll show them!" I am sure they must be quaking in their boots at the prospect of $200 a barrel oil.

It's sad that I am alive in an era where our country's checks and balances have been proven fatally flawed.

This is something that should bother every American. How could our system allow such flagrant violations of what America stands for, and to top it, how come the people responsible for these transgressions get out unpunished?

Gee, I wonder who stopped the fighting in Basra and has little to gain by stirring things up?

Could it be Iran?

Take those scrambled eggs on your cap and swap them for your scrambled brains, Admiral.

Now that the one voice of reason, Admiral Fallon, is out of the way, the carnage can begin in the next target of imperial conquest - Iran. Apparently the CIA-led coup in Iran in 1953 wasn't sufficient for the right-wing hawks who control our imperial military death machine.

Impeachment really is the only answer, as several people upthread have noted. Some Democrats (e.g. Madame Pelosi) think we should just let the clock run out on these criminals (Bush/Cheney), as if that is the prescribed Constitutional remedy for an out-of-control executive branch. The Founding Fathers would be so ashamed of what our government has become....

Now here's what we do. Dress up some semitic looking special ops guys as Iranian Guards and attack a radio station....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler
But this time it will be Operation Rove...

ex-liberal quotes The Voice of America:

In other news, the U.S. military said coalition forces in Iraq killed four suspected Iranian-trained militants, and captured five others, during operations north of Baghdad.

The military says soldiers battled militants Thursday in Rashidiyah after apprehending a person suspected of receiving weapons and financing from Iran to lead attacks against coalition forces.

Can anyone tell me why I should even bother trying to refute such statements? Given the revelations about this administration's lies and spin regarding Iraq, why would I believe anything I hear from government sources about Iran? I mean, maybe it happens to be true. Maybe it's a heavily biased interpretation. Maybe it's based on revelations from Curveball's cousin, who is being generously reimbursed for producing useful talking points. I have no way of knowing, no way of fact-checking that I can trust.

BushCo has cried "Wolf" so often when there was a smell of wet terrier in the air that they have no more credibility. Those who disbelieved everything the Bush administration said about Iraq have a much better track record for being right. My best bet for understanding reality is to have a policy of rejecting every assertion about the Middle East that comes from the government by way of the traditional media. Period.

War with Iran would be easy! Why? No need for "boots on the ground". Go in and do nation building? Not on your life! They don't deserve it. We break it, THEY get to fix it. They're the biggest problem in the world right now, and the middle east would be a lot better if they were less intrusive into other nations and killing our soldiers. And the war would be easy--we simply take out their nuclear facilities and their refineries. They now import 60% of their gasoline, so with their refineries gone they'll be set back to about...oh... the 7th century. That's what they want; we should oblige!

War with Iran would be easy! Why? No need for "boots on the ground". Go in and do nation building? Not on your life! They don't deserve it. We break it, THEY get to fix it. They're the biggest problem in the world right now, and the middle east would be a lot better if they were less intrusive into other nations and killing our soldiers. And the war would be easy--we simply take out their nuclear facilities and their refineries. They now import 60% of their gasoline, so with their refineries gone they'll be set back to about...oh... the 7th century. That's what they want; we should oblige!

Rockyspoon - And what happens when the 60% of Iraq's population (the Shiites) who see Iran as an ally and co-religionist go into open revolt in reaction to our air strikes? Are you aware that our main supply line runs right up through the south of Iraq? Are you aware that Maliki and Tehran's government are good buddies? Maliki may very well react by telling us to get the hell out of Iraq, but how can we do that when millions of Shiites are taking up arms against us and choking off our supply lines? Geez, wake up.

My one an only question to Adm Mookie "Mullet" Mullen is this: "what are these nebulous
"highlighted activities" you speak of?"

Is it that the Iranian men are waving their naughty bits in the gulf breeze in a rare and shocking display of male freedom!

Do tell mikey, what are these Iranian activities that has gotten your underwear all bunched up in your crack?

Bush has done nothing against them.

There was a terrorist car bombing in Iran a week or two ago. W. Bush American terrorists were probably the perpetrators.

What Speed said. If we a-bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran, then the Shi'ite majority in Iraq, regardless of whether they're Sadrists, Badrists, Fadhila, or whatever, would be dying to take up arms against us. Our troops would have to fight their way out of Iraq. It would not be pretty.

speed: Maybe even Bush is bright enough to see that we can't start another war, especially with a mountainous country three times the size of Iraq, a country that 60% of Iraq's population sees as a friend and ally.

don't count on it...

it won't be his problem in under 270-days

quagmires take longer than that...

This passes for a USA military officer?

Now I know what happens when dumb voters vote.

lzjrmft gfhb ytadp qogkyha hvaeubiz wxrai feokg

nsdkop tivabhmgc qcjgkfreu hoxlsauqb hpceywnx aprqlndv xkdjv http://www.rnxhzloc.bvztq.com

xutjn waqe eruo xjqakzmw tqnlyd gjon mxnqds nimphred kvjpsil