More blood for oil company profits?

And the signal that the dems want to send? A complete and total capitulation to the administration's illegal spying.

Don't expect any more support from the dems to avert this disaster or hold the chimp accountable.

The most unpopular president in US history and the dems want to pretend that supporting his policies and enabling the treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is somehow "good" because it is bipartisan.

Obama is proving himself to be just another lying fool.

"Time to clean up the nutjobs in your own movement, folks."

You're kidding, right? Once upon a time there was a group of nutjobs called the John Birch Society (Ronald Reagan was a proud member). Their views ("Eisenhower is a dedicated member of the international communist conspiracy," etc.) were so off-the-wall that the media ignored them. Then, they started winning elections. The media decided that winning elections makes people respectable. Now the John Birch Society runs the country.

If you took the "nut jobs" out of the Republican party, there wouldn't be anybody left.

Iran has provided aid to terrorists in Iraq, and may be helping Al Qeada.

I call bullshit. Prove it. And do remember that after peddling the same lies about Iraq, the goverment's credibility is a little strained.

An attack would be more than justified, as those actions constitute an act of war.

This line of so-called "reasoning" completely mystifies me. If the wingnuts contend that manufacturing or even selling weapons used against one's people constitutes "an act of war," then they're justifying the anti-American stance of many Islamists, who blame America when Israel, say, rains American-made bombs from American-made fighter-bombers on civilians in Lebanon. If America is justified in military action against Iran, then Middle Eastern countries are justified in striking America for the very same reason.

Why do the warmongers hate America?

Kevin,
I have to say that apparently any attack on Iran is A-OKAY with the Democratic party considering how they voted on the Telecom-Immunity/Hey-go-nuts-on-domestic-spying bill...if Boy George thinks Iran is a existential threat, then I'm sure the Dem's will line up, all soldier-like, and do as they are told...so stop whining about the Republicans.

If ya ain't part of the solution, then yer part of the problem. I must agree with Mark With Tiny Pencil and Posted.

Al: Have YOU concidered ENLISTMENT. YOU could be on the first wave in, don't just sit on the couch and let SOMEONE ELSE do YOUR killing for YOU.

If at first, you don't succedd, try, try again. Maybe earnest "shrub" is going to try achieve his immortality at being a great leader by giving it another go. What can he lose, a few more points in his popularity?

FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH, Call Nan 1-202-225-0100.

"Time to clean up the nutjobs in your own movement, folks."

Kevin, the cynic in me says that you shouldn't write things like this. Just point out the hypocrisy, and cram it down their throats, until it becomes an echo chamber, and the deafening sound brings blood trails from their ears. Only way they'll understand.

Huh? Wasnt Kristol Bill just on FOX saying that Bush might attack Iran?

Nutjobs! You want Nutjobs! As things get worse and worse in this country you will see Nutjobs during our last days who will make the ones of today look sane!

Republicans: Elevating Bad Faith to a Principle!

Time to clean up the nutjobs in your own movement, folks.

Nutjobs? Do we get to impeach now?

I can Haz NutzJobz!!

"I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President."
______________________

The above is what Ambassador Bolton actually said, which seems to be answering a hypothetical, rather than advocating a specific action. If answering a question about the possibility of what Israel might do, if they decided to do it, constitutes pushing a storyline, then the same can be said for any answer to any question.

But, I guess as long as it allowed Mr. Drum to use the word "nutjob" while describing a conservative, then the post has served its purpose.

"conservatives have complained that we liberals are obsessed with the idea that George Bush is going to launch a military strike on Iran"

I don't recall seeing such complaints - most of the lefty mentions of an Iran attack are a response to righties, or military people, or think-tank-types, or "liberal" hawk journos, themselves, talking about attacking Iran.

Ever since the very early days of the Iraq invasion, this constituency has had a hard-on for invading another Middle East country - remember, the WMDs are in Syria! Saddam is in Jordan/Syria! Syria/Iran are letting terrorists, foreign fighters into Iraq! (All lies, some of which persist).

My obsession for preventing a Pearl Harbor like sneak attack on Iran is driven by the constant calls from W. Bush, McDodo and Zionists for such an attack.

It wouldn't surprise me if Shrub ordered an attack on Iran just to add to the mess his (Democratic) successor has to clean up.

It wouldn't surprise me if Shrub ordered an attack on Iran just to add to the mess his (Democratic) successor has to clean up.

Hey, Daddy Bush did it when he decided to not only send troops to Somalia in late 1992, but to deepen their involvement in December of 1992, right before Bill Clinton was sworn in as the next president.

Given how much Junior craves being bigger and badder than Daddy, I fully expect there to be a nuke dropped on Tehran after the election but before the inauguration. It's the Bush family way -- if you don't get what you want, ruin it for the next guy.

I guess as long as it allowed Mr. Drum to use the word "nutjob" while describing a conservative, then the post has served its purpose.

Speaking of "nutjob," Trashy, Bolton also went on to claim that Iran would have a limited ability to retaliate -- ignoring, of course, how this limited ability belies the claim that Iran is a threat -- and that Arab states would approve of the act.

As long as dishonest, bloody-minded conservatives like Trashy dishonestly quote neocons like Bolton out of context to pretend that they aren't "advocating a specific action" and "pushing a storyline," Kevin's description is apt. As are "disgusting, bloodthirsty, warmongers." Shame on you, Trashy.

Partisan bickering is worthless on this issue since both policies are doomed to fail. While a number of conservatives and extremist Zionists are call for the big stick of war some liberals are call for the friendly stick of appeasement.

"For the past three decades, successive Democratic and Republican administrations failed to moderate the Islamic Republic of Iran’s foreign policies. Neither the pursuit of a “grand bargain” in the hope of a strategic rapprochement or bellicose regime-change saber-rattling proved successful."

http://usiranalliance.org/us-iran

In either case, both approaches sell out the Iranian people.

A military attack would drive support behind the unpopular regime and strengthen the hardliners and legitimize their need for additional security against the "great satan."

A grand bargain will sell out the democratic movement in Iran and legitimize the mullah's bad behavior.

Avoiding military action empowers Washington to pursue a new solution that does not perpetuate the carrots and sticks policy paradigm that failed to moderate the behavior of the regime for the past 30 years. To heal the disease at its source, Washington must focus on the regime’s failed domestic policy evident in its economic mismanagement, deplorable human rights conditions, and widespread dissident movement.

Exposing the struggles and frustrations of the majority of Iranian citizens to the world media and targeting the regime’s domestic policy will provide Iran’s dissidents with the support they need to facilitate democratic development. Washington will then possess the leverage it currently lacks to successfully achieve internal political, social, and economic change in Iran to satisfy U.S. strategic interests.

Christopher Feld wrote: "Washington will then possess the leverage it currently lacks to successfully achieve internal political, social, and economic change in Iran to satisfy U.S. strategic interests."

The US has one and only one "strategic interest" in the Middle East, and that is to ensure that US-based transnational oil corporations control, and reap the overwhelming majority of the trillions of dollars in profit from extracting and selling, the Middle Eastern oil reserves.

The US already demonstrated what sort of "internal political, social, and economic change in Iran" would "satisfy" this strategic interest, when the US CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, which had nationalized the Iranian oil industry, and installed the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, who returned Iran's oil to the control of western corporations.

I sympathize with the "struggles and frustrations" of the Iranian people. However, if they think the US government has their interests in mind, they are deluded.

What Bolton is doing to promote McCain is to send the signal to voters that Israel is a loose cannon that only a Republican administration can "control". If voters elect Obama, Israel will strike before he can be inaugurated. I also think there is a stronger second more ulterior message: If you elect Obama, Israel attacks, gas will be DOUBLE what it is even NOW-kaching!

Exposing the US clandestine operations in Iran and the deaths of Iranian citizens by US clients to the world media and publicizing the W. Bush regime's terror policy will provide Iran's people with the knowledge they need to facilitate democratic resistance to US imperialism.

The only way to satisfy US strategic interests in Iran is for Iranians to die. Iranians ought to know that, even if Americans are too stupid to acknowledge it.

Don't you think that all those stories and ythe backlash that came from them within the military and republican parties had something to do with there never being an attack. Those were very well sourced articles and there was more than enough rhetoric from the administration to support the notion they wanted to attack Iran, and even today we have the US negotiating to defend Iraq pre-emptively based on what the US considers a threat.

I think it is a great diservice you do to the investigative journalists who brought forth those stories by now treating them as the equivalent of tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories.

Everybody knows that the u.s are going to stage attacks in iran as they're doing now, the iranians have filed suit against america for attacking them. they're trying to provoke iran into defending themselves so that they can claim iran attacked them which they will use as justification for another american odball act of agression...gulf of tonkin all over again. bush wanted to paint a u.s plane to look like a un plane in a provocation of saddam it's in the goddam memo he sent to blair. blair agreed with the idea should he fail to get a resolution past by the un.

Progressive outcomes are hardly ever the product of actors choosing the "right" or "moral" solution- take the passing of the Civil Rights Act or the abolition of slavery as examples. Whether Washington cares about the Iranian people is irrelevant. Washington’s strategic goals are securing oil as it is vital to U.S. National Security directives, supporting Israel as it counterbalances forces in the region that enables the U.S. to better secure the above mentioned directive, and maintaining balance in the region between Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and their Arab neighbors for the above mentioned directive. Attacking Iran will undermine U.S. strategic interests.

Just as 1953, Vietnam, and (hopefully) Iraq II taught policymakers is that discrediting the human element when trying to persecute a military conflict will come back to haunt you. A war with Iran would alienate the most pro-American people in the region and drive support behind the otherwise wildly unpopular regime.

Supporting Iran’s human rights will create the leverage Washington needs to satisfy its strategic interests in the region. Securing freedom and democracy for Iran is just a perk that comes along with Washington’s support. The solution I posit is hardly mentioned in mainstream discourse. I suppose that is because people assume that supporting Iran’s human rights as solution is some solely altruistic motive. In the bigger picture, everyone (including states) act in their self interest. Since the past 30 years have delivered zero results, what does Washington have to lose by supporting Iran’s dissidents who can cure the disease at its source?