US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

[nonconformist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.


The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

<snip>

Saw this over in GD, but didn't see a thread about it here.

[leftchick]

1. oh god, here we go again.....

these people are fucking insane...

<snip>

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

... any bets that the Dem is Lieberman?

[nonconformist]

6. "lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government"

Like Iraq, right?

These people are completely delusional.

[Canuckistanian]

39. Exactly. Sabre rattling was what caused the present hardline gov't

The reformers in Iran were actually making some headway until the "axis of evil" fiasco.

The Irani reformers were thrown out in favour of the more militant hardline fundamentalists.

So, this is really Shrub's own problem.

[saigon68]

194. The Old "Light Em Up and make em glow in the dark" Attack

This should get the attention of all the stoop laborers and ox-farmers in the world

[Jackpine Radical]

41. With any luck, that'll be the outcome

HERE!

When I read this story earlier, I was ready to quit my job & go full-time onto the streets.

[wordpix2]

90. yeah, Arabs want to overthrow their govts when US is doing the bombing

that destroys their homes, infrastructure and kills/maims their family members. :sarcasm:

Way to go, BushCo! You are totally insane, all of you, and need to be jailed so you're no longer a menace to society and the world.

:puke:

[reprobate]

107. That's exactly what Hitler's motive was for the Battle of Britain.

He said that continued bombing would sap the british of resolve and make an invasion (Operation Sea Lion) much easier.

It's interesting to follow the parallels between George and Adolph. I also believe that Jeseph Goebells is still alive and residing somewhere in the white house press office.

[CHORONZON]

139. Joseph Goebells residing in the white house press corps

He is. His new name is Karl Rove.

[tavalon]

190. This is what I get for getting to the conversation late

That was my line. Goebbels was slightly more insane and slightly more intelligent but not much in either catagory.

[Lisa]

142. yes, the British people were totally cowed by that ...

They greeted their German liberators with flowers .... NOT!

[Danmel]

125. Iranians are NOT Arabs

They are Persian- speak Farsi and not Arabic. They are Muslim, but not Arab.

[WhiteTara]

103. they'll be throwing flowers at our soldiers!

yeah right. This is suicide.

[Roland99]

118. Well, they've obviously learned from their mistakes and will do it right

:sarcasm:

[LuckyTheDog]

163. Yes, we have come this far

There now will be a national debate about whether an unprovoked nuclear attack on a non-nuclear country is a good idea. Great.

[OKNancy]

7. Deluded thinking if this is really true

They think:
"a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government,"

If they think that will really happen, then they are just crazy. I guess they think that Iranians are stupid or not like other humans or nations. It would have the opposite effect. Their resolve would be stiffened, and Iranians would band together, not fall apart and call for revolution. In fact it would just prove to them that what they have been hearing about the evil US is right.

[DELUSIONAL]

29. Since the leaders in Iran were ELECTED

and the nut case who won the election got a boost from crazy Georgie Bush calling him names -- it would seem that an attack on Iran would make the Iranians more nationalistic -- the old us against them game -- which would make them resist and hate the US.

As if bushie hasn't made enough enemies.

Also the irony -- they can't have nukes and to makes sure they don't have nukes -- the US will nuke Iran because Iran might, perhaps have nukes in say 5 or 10 years.

The Hitler is bushie -- he is insane. Anyone who things bushie is sane is also nuts/crazy insane.

[Tesha]

31. Remember, these are the same people who planned our glorious victory...

> Deluded thinking if this is really true
>
> They think: "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the
> religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the
> government,"
>
> If they think that will really happen, then they are just crazy.

Remember, these are the same people who planned our glorious victory
in Iraq. They dream something and think their dreams will come true,
because they believe some combination of: 1) They are supermen, much
more intelligent than everyone else; 2a) They have a god on their side and
2b) that the god of the other guys is just a made-up fraud; and 3) Advanced
weapons in the hands of couldn't-give-two-shits-about-it soldiers can win
over a less-well-armed but thoroughly-determined populace.

You're right: They *ARE* deluded.

Tesha

[EVDebs]

70. What post-strike scenarios emerge after Conplan 8022 ?

Wm Arkin's May 2005 article in the Washington Post recommends more public discussion of this plan and its implications since a credible threat to sane Iranians may defuse the situation from escalation. In the meantime, the madmen in the Pentagon strategery only appears to poke Iran in the eye. What is the point of this whole exercise anyway ?

[tavalon]

191. If we use nuclear bunker busters or even better

one of our big boys, the world will take us done, whether through fiscal (more likely) or even military means and don't think the world isn't contemplating that very thing. There will be no more America if these insane people go through with this.

[Demeter]

9. There's One Government That Would Surely Be Overthrown

but it isn't in the Old World. Or Latin America. Or Canada.

[jwirr]

35. Who are the Dems on the committees that are supposed to

oversee this shit?

[leftchick]

94. I would think the senate intelligence committee

and the armed services committee...

Here is the Armed Services committee:

Democrats
Senator State
Carl M. Levin, Ranking Minority Member Michigan
Edward Kennedy Massachusetts
Robert Byrd West Virginia
Joe Lieberman Connecticut
Jack Reed Rhode Island
Daniel Akaka Hawaii
Bill Nelson Florida
Ben Nelson Nebraska
Mark Dayton Minnesota
Evan Bayh Indiana
Hillary Rodham Clinton New York


And intelligence:

Democrats
Senator State
John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV, Ranking Minority Member West Virginia
Carl Levin Michigan
Dianne Feinstein California
Ron Wyden Oregon
Evan Bayh Indiana
Barbara Mikulski Maryland
Russ Feingold Wisconsin

[sweetheart]

44. Barbarossa

Well so many people have been asking over the years,
"Is it 1933 or 1938", and now we all have our answer.
Its "t-barbarrossa". This fits the model to a tee.

An otherwise onry, semi-neutral ally in a war-area
who has had a non-aggression pact, is turned on with
an all out secret blitzkrieg attack. Then russia
gets trigger happy from last time, and the US loses
the eastern seaboard, no matter what the russian
ultimate toll.

Bush is a green in disguise, and he's helping to
reduce the population, doing his little part.

[lovuian]

144. Yes I bet Liberman too...

Thinks stinks!!!

[HuffleClaw]

189. "A government consultant with close ties...

...to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

which, of course, is pretty much exactly what bush said about IRAQ, some twaddle about a 'legacy' and 'history will judge'...

[President Kerry]

201. And of course we have seen Bush's convictions to be

quite credible in the past. :sarcasm: This is a big one. If they do this, especially the use of nukes, the US will become the ultimate pariah. And Bush will bear the consequences of a domestic uprising.

[Voltaire99]

212. If it's Lieberman, will his protege Obama be in on the scoop, too?

Cockburn on the Lieberman-Obama political love affair:

http://counterpunch.com/cockburn04072006.html

[IndianaGreen]

223. Perhaps it was Al From, our illustrious CEO for the DLC

We can expect NDOL to be coming out with a new pro-Bush pronouncement shortly.

[katty]

230. finally reaches MSM-been reading articles on this for months

yet, when Sy writes - it may knock out the argument that the U.S. wouldn't dare to bomb Iraq (I have read and listened to that POV for months). Generally, when Congress is away, the bush hawks like to play.

[C_U_L8R]

2. I hope there are some grown-ups at the Pentagon

who will take Georgie's toys away....
good god... he has made us into a nuclear first strike menace.
The world cannot afford to tolerate US.

[leftchick]

4. apparently they are quitting

:(

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

[jwirr]

40. Forget quitting, have a very public sit-down strike against

the crazy "commander in thief". It is time for the real leaders of the military - the field commanders and regular military to stand up and say no. The German military should have done it under Hitler and our military should do it now. This is too much. They have sworn to protect the constitution and the people of the US - it is time they do.

[tabasco]

72. "some officers have talked about resigning"

Oooohhhh - now there's some moral courage for ya'! :crazy:

Any general that gives a shit for his country should resign and start talking to the press about this sinister administration.

Of course, most of the generals who speak their mind have already been purged by the corporate cabal.

The military is just another goddam mess that will need cleaned up after this nightmare is over.

[wordpix2]

86. maybe they're resigning so they can sing! Otherwise, they'll go against

their bosses insanity and love of nukes

[IndianaGreen]

77. A lot of dedicated public servants have already left the Pentagon

We are now seeing many of these retired military officers coming out and lambasting Rumsfeld and Bush for destroying our nation.

[President Kerry]

202. Too bad. They can be more useful keeping their posts and resisting

the insanity UNTIL THEY'RE FIRED by the psychos in the WH. Them speaking up against the gov't doesn't get fairly reported by the media anyway.

[UpInArms]

12. Rumsfailed wants to play with nukes

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence:
"What is victory? I say victory is persuading the American people and the
rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that will be over in a
month or a year or even 5 years. It is something we need to do so that we
can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who
arewilling to use those powerful weapons. And we can do that. That would be a
victory in my opinion." Dec. 2001

[truth2power]

32. That statement is just insane...

"so that we can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who
are willing to use those powerful weapons."

...so that we can live.. As if that's some sort of worthy goal. Christ Almighty!! And to think that we have a government in which this kind of thinking is considered the NORM. Rumsfeld is crazy! He should be put away where he can't hurt himself (well, not my concern, actually) or others. :banghead:

[UpInArms]

36. a friend of mine emailed me that quote on 1/11/02 with these comments

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard Rumsfeld say this.....I rewound
the video over and over to get the exact words.......finally someone stupid
enough to tell the truth....but did anyone hear it? I bet this was not on
the evening news....


Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence:
"What is victory? I say victory is persuading the American people and the
rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that will be over in a
month or a year or even 5 years. It is something we need to do so that we
can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who
are willing to use those powerful weapons. And we can do that. That would be a
victory in my opinion." Dec. 2001



All Americans must ask themselves: is this the kind of world we want to live
in? A world in perpetual war? Is this the American dream we love and
cherish?

I only wish that those words would be replayed over and over on the mainstream media for all the people of this country to hear - so they could know what insanity resides within this mal-administration.

[truth2power]

52. OMG! Somehow I just filtered out

that 12/01 date at the end of the quote. Jeezus!! He said that 5 years ago??

I am without words to describe the insanity coming from this administration. They are going to be the death of us all, and THAT INCLUDES THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS!...hellooo?

Ya' know, this statement is similar to what that other nutcase, Richard Perle, said...something about "if we engage in continuous war, our children will sing our praises." (paraphrased).

The plague of Leo Strauss!

[lovuian]

147. Now perhaps some people will understand Mabus is Bush

and Osama and they are one in the same...

Now the prediction of Nostradamus of a Third World War isn't so far fetched...

what is the position going to be of India and China after this

going to be???

[Tight_rope]

221. Yes...I remember...That's why I started calling him RummytheDummy!

[ronnie624]

177. The statement is sheer lunacy.

This brutal, blood thirsty mass murderer is literally saying that victory is perpetual war. One can scarcely give credence to such bizarre logic.

[54anickel]

49. Here's the actual transcript

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09202001_t920ruma.html

Google for "world with powerful weapons" rumsfeld Lots of hits....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22world+with+powerful+weapons%22+rumsfeld

[UpInArms]

68. thanks 54anickel!

I didn't have that link and it shows that the quote I had emailed to me was exact:

Now, what is victory? I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that's going to be over in a month or a year or even five years. It is something that we need to do so that we can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons. And we can do that as a country. And that would be a victory, in my view.

:scared:

the transcript is from

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001 - 12:01 p.m. EDT

[54anickel]

119. You're welcome. What's really scary is knowing what Rummy's

definition of victory is, and then looking back at all the times he's used the term victory since then.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=October&x=20051014173815adynned0.2901728&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
Victory Is Bottom Line in War Against Terror, Rumsfeld Says

Washington -- The goal of the global War on Terror is "victory -- unconditional, unapologetic, and unyielding," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says, even as the terrorists pursue a test of wills in which their goal is not to win militarily but to outlast the coalition.



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/12/iraq.main/index.html
Rumsfeld in Iraq: No political delays

"We don't have an exit strategy," he said. "We have a victory strategy."


Let's not forget Novembers "Victory Plan" Guess we can just replace "Iraq" with the evil regime of the day...Rummy declared forever war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

[wordpix2]

83. the PNAC creed. Rummy is completely insane & the more he fails in Iraq

the crazier he gets. But this statement shows how nuts he was even in '01.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. You're kidding, right? They've been purged since 2000.

[bowens43]

3. If they want to find Hitler, a monster , they need look

no farther then the oval office....

[nonconformist]

5. Here's a link to The New Yorker article

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Reminiscent of Nixon bombing Cambodia?

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

It reminds me of Nixon saying he hoped that bombing Cambodia would convince Hanoi that he was crazy, and that they wouldn't push him as hard in negotiations. The thought that repeating the Iraq tactics will work in Iran is so ridiculous that you wonder if the whole thing isn't just a bargaining ploy by the neo-cons - look like swivel-eyed fanatics and Iran will back down. But it's a damn convincing immitation of insanity that Bush and his hallucinating band of thugs are doing. After all, Nixon really was paranoid, by any normal definition, wasn't he? Is the correct place for Bush, cheney and Runsfeld not the dock of a war crimes court, but a secure hospital with heavy amounts of drugs?

[EVDebs]

67. Related DU post on Conplan 8022 shows assumptions DoD uses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=879510&mesg_id=880715

[NYC]

146. Bush & Co. didn't read The Pentagon Papers.

Those who don't understand/remember history are condemned to repeat it. But what does Bush care? Weren't enormous profits generated in Iraq? Isn't that the goal? Iraqis and Americans be damned. The corporations profit.

Bombing doesn't working for winning the war, but it works for generating profits.

[President Kerry]

203. They're not insane - they're criminals. They know what they're doing.

They're just shameless.

[54anickel]

54. Thanks, the AFP article seemed to glance over an awful lot. For example-

The AFP:

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.



The NewYorker:

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

[wordpix2]

92. * "reluctant to brief the minority" in Congress. Gee, I wonder why.

“they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

[TankLV]

167. Just like last time - brief the REPUKES ONLY, don't include any dems.

then claim "THEY ALL HAD THE SAME INFORMATION and voted for it".

And, if any dems go along and vote for this shit AGAIN, after all the LIES, then THESE TRAITOR DEMS MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE JUST LIKE THEIR FELLOW REPUKES!

This will prove once and for all that we MUST vote for PRINCIPLE above party - for what good is voting "D" if they vote right along side their "fellow" repukes?!

WE WILL BE WATCHING AND LISTENING THIS TIME AROUND!

THERE CAN BE NO MORE EXCUSES.

[legin]

220. In britain : Ministers have started geting MP's used to the idea

of attacking Iran. ( or so a little bird told me. )

[IndianaGreen]

74. According to article, Bush is using Iranian Kurds

teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Exactly how are the Shias in Iran and Iraq going to retaliate against the Kurds in their respective countries if the Kurds become a party to a US nuclear strike against Iran? Would it be genocide to wipe out a population that was complicit in genocide?

Bible-based foreign policy of the Bush dictatorship is going to get us all killed for the glory of Jesus!

[lyonn]

153. What do you bet these creeps have their secret islands

under contract or already purchased. Paid for with tax payers money. They will be considered secret locations. After all, the U.S. will be too unstable for the people in power to stay.

[vickitulsa]

155. This may be where we who saw through him all along made a mistake.

<<Bible-based foreign policy of the Bush dictatorship is going to get us all killed for the glory of Jesus!>>


Yes, we could see from the outset of his appearance on the national stage that GWB was a Bible-banging true believer ... or did we think surely it was an ACT on his part? Did we see him in a cartoonish fashion and fail to recognize just how "together" the Bush Cabal is in their plan to rule the world?

Yep ... rule the world, I said it. Along with their spiritual king, of course -- Jesus on a white horse with his very own sword, leading the charge in a post-Rapture world (or is it mid-Rapture?). As the entire globe erupts in Armageddon madness, drawing blood so deep it's up to the bridles of the horses, leaving the largest amount of ashes ever, even on a planet that's seen two World Wars and wars named things like "The Hundred Years War."

Well, now the Bush Cabal thinks a hundred years is WAY TOO SHORT a time to call for! Let's have, oh yes, it'll be glorious! Let's have ... PERPETUAL WAR!!!

Hell, if we run short of bodies to burn, we'll just turn to the illegal immigrants and solve that problem in the deal!.................

SICK SICK BASTARDS

I think we underestimated just how serious this man and his criminal crew ARE about fulfilling Dear Leader's messianic vision~! He's not a cartoon, he's a slasher horror movie!

[ronnie624]

185. Ruling the world is indeed their intention.

Did we see him in a cartoonish fashion and fail to recognize just how "together" the Bush Cabal is in their plan to rule the world?

To those of us who are reasonably informed and have an interest in such things the plans of the Bush Administration have been clear from the beginning. Their goals were revealed by the PNAC website as well as the so called National Security Strategy which was submitted to congress in late 2002. The document is loaded with many high-minded references to "freedom", "democracy", "human dignity" and other such twaddle but there is no mistaking the tone or intentions of those who authored it.

<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0920-05.htm>

I can tell by your post that you have not been bamboozled by corporate propaganda either. Excellent.

[springhill]

108. Boy, read this part......really scary.........

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

[lyonn]

151. Now that is one scary article

But---all this chatter in the media happened before and this White House bunch has proven they are crazy enough to march forward, or should I say, start the bombing.

We can only hope this article gets enough attention to get the talking heads to discuss it so that the people know what the hell this bunch has planned.

[Demeter]

8. That Would Guarantee a One-Way Trip to the Gallows For Bush & Co.

In a way, I hope they do (but miss the people of Iran) so we can absolutely, without any chance of error or cruelty, rid the world of these people legally, morally, and permanently. And discourage any wannabes.

[Lochloosa]

10. Here is the KEY passage in the article. I am firmly convinced he is going

to do this.

Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”


Messianic Complex
Messianic Complex is a psychological state in which the individual believes him/herself to be the saviour of the world.

The term is also used to describe the mindset of 1st Century Palestinians who believed the coming of the Messiah to be imminent


IMPEACH HIM NOW!

[shadowknows69]

91. The more I think, the more in despair I sink

What can we do? Someone has to stop this. There are madmen in control of the Titanic and they are making for flank speed towards the nearest iceberg. H.G. Wells had it pegged because after we nuke Iran and the rest of the world engages their contingency plans against us (and you can bet they've been making plans)and we're spanked like the petulant child that America has become. The only people left will be our glorious, cowardly leaders in their undisclosed bunkers slowly becoming the morlocks. We, the Eoli, will still be slaves and cattle for our dark and twisted overlords. The lucky ones will die first. Anyone have an anti depressant I can borrow?

[vickitulsa]

157. Not mine, I'm saving them for an emergency OD so I don't suffer

a terrible, prolonged radiation death!

<< Anyone have an anti depressant I can borrow? >>

Those who don't remember the Cuban Missile Crisis have no idea what it's like to live day to day under the Nuclear Annihilation Cloud, so they can't really understand how dangerous Bush&Co are. Young Americans now cannot imagine that the world could really go off its kilter that badly due to human actions, rocked by massive nuclear launchings as the silo doors crank open -- and folks in a remote farmhouse in Nebraska look up with shock to see an enormous nuke hurtling eastward.

They don't know that we have only 28 minutes to "make our peace" before THEIR nukes reach us....

They can't recall hearing false rumors of the strikes already begun that send everyone into a terror no terrorist we've yet imagined could hope for....

They can't hear the strains of that little tune they played on the defense preparedness films for the "Duck and Cover" drill... nor flash on the scenes in it, that we mimicked... children smilingly ducking under their desks at school as though that will keep them safe....

The only way they can even begin to imagine what that's really like is to watch a rerun of Twilight Zone or two that dealt with it, or one of those old movies people now might laugh at as unrealistic, like "The Day After," for instance....

(Sorry, I'm unable to contain the rant today)

:argh: :mad: :rant:

[wordpix2]

93. we MUST jail this guy who thinks he's God's messenger. He's a menace

[NYC]

148. Bush's messianic quote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x882860

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

[willing dwarf]

11. There's a mad man in the White Hose and he's got bombs!!!

We need to call senators & congressmen to demand he be removed from power immediately!

[Kailassa]

20. Bitsh has been playing dress-ups again?

Fishnets or nylons?

[54anickel]

13. Isn't this exactly why Iran wanted nukes? As a deterrent? I mean it's

still a suspected nuclear weapons facility - no proof one way or the other. Bush wants to nuke 'em because "the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler" and they want to change the power structure.

:wtf: is with these neo-cons. It used to be that if the US wanted a regime change, it was a covert operation by the alphabet soup teams. Not that I agree with past covert operations of the US, but it beats the hell out of declaring wars.

And yeah, my money is with post #1 as far as Lieberman being the Dem involved.

[Inland]

16. Here's the lesson from Iraq and the NK negotiations

that Iran, and any other country that is getting the stink eye from the neocons, learn.

While the president says that we only attack to defend ourselves from danger, the fact of the matter is that as between North Korea and Iraq, we attacked the country that was weak and easily available and not a threat, and entered into a leisurely negotiation with the country that really has nukes and threatens to burn us all in a nuclear fire periodically.

Lesson: have WMD and tell Washington to fuck off, and you're fine. Not have WMD and you are just hoping that your country ends up being considered one of the good dictatorships.

Any rational country would ignore what Bush says, realize that he has the morality of a pirate and look to its defenses, including nukes.

[jamesinca]

26. still a suspected nuclear weapons facility

I think Brewster Jennings would be the ones investigating that. Wait they don't exist anymore, since George outed Valerie Plame. How convenient is that, take out the only eyes and ears that we may have had on the ground there and get rid of it, now they can blow things up with no intelligence reports. Not that they ever read them anyway.

[snappyturtle]

76. Another good reason.....

they "leaked", whatever, the name of Valerie Plame.....she and Brewster Jennings would cloud their "vision". If nothing else, the crazies-in-charge have far reaching vision. :scared:

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

69. NUKE Iran so Iran can't use NUKES-that's like using Rape to prevent Sex

or robbing someone to prevent them from stealing because stealing is wrong.
or beating someone up because fighting is wrong.

??????????????

These guys want Iran's oil too-
Iran has almost as much of that "sweet" crude as Iraq-(which refines with almost no processing required)
(as opposed to Venezuela's reserves of crude which require considerable processing)

Stealing OiL-
that's what the whole "war on terror" is about-
the lives of the "less fortunate" Americans are to be stagegically used for this one purpose.

I say send those daughters of a Bush...if it's so noble to die let's see them risk their own!


.

[SOS]

130. And to top it off

It will not protect the US from a nuclear strike.
Exactly the opposite.
Either a Pakistani, North Korean or black market nuke will be in New York harbor in no time.

[jamesinca]

184. Don't forget the natural gas

One of the largest natural gas fields in the world, I have been told, sits at the south Caspian sea. That just happens to be Iran's northern border.

[Pavulon]

197. A few fission bombs

does not deter an attack from a nation with 3000MT online with the capability to deliver this anywhere in 30 minutes or so. Including stealth delivery capability of enough nuclear explosives to destroy a nation.

This idea is posturing we are not going to first strike on Iran.

[liberal N proud]

15. Someone - Please! - Stop these monsters from destroying the world

The world can not and will not sit back and watch this happen.

[President Kerry]

204. There's no "someone" here. It's us. We must hit the streets

in every city and protest and demonstrate. And do what we can to get every single supporter of * out of office. There's not much time.

[Eugene]

17. The New Yorker article is chilling. Bush is insane!

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said
that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped.
He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican,
if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going
to be his legacy.”

If nobody else shares your unique vision, could it be an hallucination?

As for bombing the Iranians into rising up against their leaders, they are not only nuts,
they are ignorant of history. Bombing campaigns do not work. They didn't work
in World War II, they didn't work in Viet Nam and, most important, they didn't work
during the "War of Cities" bombardment during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

[IDemo]

19. Too late for his legacy

That will be about destroying two nations, Iraq and America.

[Ezlivin]

18. Sounds like another "leak"

Seymour Hersch has predicted once before that we'd go to war with Iran.

I believe that the administration "leaked" this information to gauge Iran's and the world's reaction.

[Swamp Rat]

21. Look for a bright flash in the night sky, West by Northwest of you anytime

now because they're gonna resume testing in Nevada.

"Shock and Awe" isn't just a threat. It is a mission to be carried out, as we have already seen.

[jamesinca]

27. Condi Rice said it during the summer of '04

She stated that the US would be at war with Iran within a year. Something must have slowed their ass down like an investigation that kept Karl out of the propaganda room. By summer of '05 Libby and Rove were in front of the grand jury a lot.

[springhill]

112. I don't think so......

Hersh has said many times that there are military planners and others who are scared about what is going on. And they have been talking to Hersh. I think our only way out of this is for a massive rebellion of the military leadership.

[Voltaire99]

214. See the current issue of Harper's...

for a serious panel discussion of the plausibility of that way out.

[DemMother]

131. Sounds more like the leaks are coming from people who want to stop Bush.

This administration isn't interested in anyone else's opinion. That's why they shout down all opposition.

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. "including at least one Democrat"

"In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said."

Gee, I wonder who that might be.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Gee...

This creature?:

[arewenotdemo]

117. Intriguing depiction of the Wolfowitz/Perle Paired Death's Heads...

has me now considering the chilling possibilty that death alone may not quiet those evil souls.

:scared:

[crikkett]

124. excellent portrait, swamp rat!

Made me laugh out loud. Always happy to see your work.
-c

[President Kerry]

205. swamp rat, good to see you at your best, pal..

:toast:

You back in NOLA?

[unhappycamper]

24. It's nice to know the crazies

have a little Joementum in their corner to catapult the propaganda.

[wordpix2]

97. joenertia, my esteemed senator, is my guess

[Pharaoh]

25. K&R

[sweetheart]

28. awaiting a worldwar power grab

It is his only way of not being thrown in prison, to declare
war, proving that this degenerate republican party would sacrifice
national security for partisan tomfoolery.

It is despicable. I'm furious with the republicans. They've
crossed an unwritten invisible line, that no politician should
ever consider crossing.... I want the lot of those lying,
, corrupt, war criminal, bastards in levenworth before any more
mass murdering they are planning.

MAD has always worked since long time long, and Iranians are
not insane people, MAD works. Going to war is a domestic way
to avoid levenworth, and they should probably take it, given
the criminal stuff coming out, i don't think they'll last the
term otherwise. This neocon highwater mark of theft 2004 was the
tipping point, looks like.

[donkeyotay]

207. MAD; Mutually Assured Destruction. Kept the Soviets at bay.

Did Sept. 11th inactivate that along with the Constitution? Iran or any other nation is not going to lob a nukular weapon our way because they know we'd wipe them off the map. And tit for tat, the whole world would soon be blind, radioactive, and life unsustainable.

king george, the dismal failure is hearing voices telling him he can still be a hero. Clue George. You can't. You can probably start WWIII, but of course, you can't finish it. I don't think America will be able to recover from this. We MIGHT be able to recover from what he's done up til now, but from this, we will not recover.

We cannot let them create this reality and then react to it. It will be too late.

[davsand]

30. Who, exactly, is using those WMDs on this planet? Would that be the US?

Didn't we just screw up stability a country, kill a bunch of people and remove their "elected" leader because we were looking for WMDs that were not really there? Didn't we make a preemptive military strike against another nation? Isn't that what just happened in the last few years?

Rather than follow his own stated doctrine, the asswipe wants to actually USE his WMDs against a nation that has not attacked us. Having learned NOTHING from his earlier mistakes in Iraq, the chimp now wants to repeat them all--while adding Nukes to the mix.

I have never doubted his hypocrisy. I just never cease to be amazed by his stupidity...


Laura

[jwirr]

33. What does he hope to accomplish? A nuke used in the

middle east will seriously pollute the whole area including Israel for years to come. This purely about oil because it is not about people. If it were he would consider the after-effects of such an action. This whole administration are trigger happy and dangerous to all of us. We will also pay the cost of the pollution of a nuke. Look at the soldiers coming home today just from exposure to spent uranium.

[LisaL]

42. Only in America-

one can consider using nukes on another country because that country might possibly get nukes one day.
Disgusting.:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[RaRa]

114. But you are assuming

that they actually CARE about pollution or soldiers....

"We will also pay the cost of the pollution of a nuke. Look at the soldiers coming home today just from exposure to spent uranium."

If this plan really happens and this country goes along with it, I am so outta here and off to Canada (if they'll still have us).

[gizmo1979]

34. That would help the world's oil

supply.Gas would jump to 7 bucks a gallon.That would be enough to close the last couple of manufacturing plants we have left.

[iamahaingttta]

37. Stop paying your taxes, people...

...stop using your credit cards, stop using any petroleum products that aren't absolutely necessary!

That's it... it's time for the revolution, and that's the only way to starve this beast.

The only reason these Oil Killers are doing all this stuff is to secure more oil that they can turn into profit, and if WE stop giving them their profits, the game will change. Sorry, I know it will be difficult. But it's the only way.

Stop paying your taxes, stop using you credit cards, stop using any petroleum products that aren't absolutely necessary.

I'll go first!

[sweetheart]

43. They got us with the cars

We're chained to the consumption machine by
the human right to an automobile, which as
it fleshes out worldwide, is a sure path
to environmental meltdown.

But what replacement? The market selection
mechanism is broken because the externalities
are removed by the taxpayer (oil wars subsidy).

Cheap travel has changed the world, as people
see foreign lands and are more knowledgeable about
global civilization above and beyond silly
hollywood fantasies. Cheap travel comes at a huge
cost, and what to do, as cheap travel is "good for
business". Is it possible to re-engineer computerized
supply chains to reduce the need for 100 mile commutes?
If blockbuster closes all its shops and turns online,
then nobody burns fuel to rent a video... and so on...
if the supply chains of life could be better engineered
that cars were truly not necessary to carry extra packages.

[crikkett]

129. I don't drive anymore unless it's an emergency,

and I've spent $40 in gas so far this year. It's not easy, but I'm doing it for a reason.

I wouldn't be able to do it if grocery stores etc weren't within walking distance, or if there wasn't a halfway-decent bus system here.

On edit: as a bonus I've lost serious weight, and I'm almost back into my dating-jeans. Woo hoo!

[jwirr]

50. One way to stop paying taxes would be to pay them to

your state rather than to the feds. That way you cans say you paid them and you will have paid them to support programs that you want to support. I doubt if this is legal but it is an option.

[SheilaT]

116. It's really hard to stop paying taxes for most of us.

If you work for a company that withholds, you can try to claim a zillion deductions, but they'll still take out FICA. And if you buy anything at all, there are a lot of taxes built in to most things.

One woman I've seen speak a couple of times who is a tax resister said that it's very, very difficult to do, and you have to be surrounded by people who are very supportive and who allow you to live on essentially no income at all.

Probably the best way to not pay taxes would be to get rich enough to amass tax exempt bonds and live off that income. Again, not practical for the most of us.

I think a better alternative is to either elect a completely brand-new Congress and as new a Senate as possible in November, and if that fails to make the changes we need, (or if it looks necessary before November) to riot in the streets.

Note to Homeland Security: I am not encouraging the violent overthrow of our government, merely the presence of enough people using peaceful means to effect a change in policy.

[htuttle]

38. "US Considers Crimes Against Humanity"

Just 'mulling it over' -- trying to decide whether they want to murder a few million people in cold blood.

Oh, the burdens of power....

[YDogg]

45. "... as a potential Adolf Hitler."

Takes one to know one?

[mzmolly]

46. It's the PNAC agenda.

Let's see if the media dares to use the acronym and educate Americans this time?

[wordpix2]

99. PNAC 101

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/9

[RedEarth]

47. Wonderful.... the chimp's on the warpath again... probably happen in Oct.

[converted_democrat]

56. My bets on June, within the first 7 days of June.. I know, you're

thinking I'm a crazy nut, but let's just see if I'm not right.. I don't think anyone will be able to talk sense into this administration.. I'll say it again, this administration will go after Iran within the first 7 days of June..

[nonconformist]

57. June 6th, maybe?

6/6/06

My spidey sense has been telling me something big is going to happen on that date. :tinfoilhat:

[yorkiemommie1]

84. i think you are right

i heard a speaker on a panel say that in january.

[wordpix2]

101. Fitz, will you step up the indictments & nail some of these criminals?

[wordpix2]

100. he doesn't have enough problems in the ME with his fraudulent IraqWar

[teryang]

48. It's pretty obvious that the bushista extremists don't have a plan

Elsewise, why all this smoke blowing?

If they had the military and political wherewithall to go to war with Iran, they had a golden opportunity recently to create some pretext during the Iranian naval exercises. In fact, they have the ability to create a pretext for war at any time. The problem is they will be crossing a line that will not be tolerated by major powers. At a minimum, Russia and China will provide any Iranian entity surviving the initial attack with a virtully infinite supply of military resources to resist us.

It is so vain for these white collars in Washington to believe that they are the masters of the great game in Asia. We are being bled white economically by their strategic mistakes thus far. We will be trying to force our will deep inland in Asia, with an enemy that has geography and demographics on their side.

The idea that they have to wait for an October surprise is ridiculous. If they attack Iran today the war won't be over five years from now. The notion that this could be short and quick is preposterous. It will go on until this neo con regime is run out of town and its successors will inherit the fallout for a generation.

I was particularly amused by the rationalization that we don't want Israel to attack them, so the only thing to do is to attack them ourselves.

The whole article was a plate of warmed over bullshit, smelling remarkably like the Iraq War Resolution. Be it resolved...

[lyonn]

154. Everything you said is quite accurate

Now go tell it to our great leader. Invasion of Iraq made no sense even if you believed all his bs yet he bombed anyway.

[soleft]

51. Leiberman's got to the democrat - also a dirty nuke in US

is the only way they can pull this off.

[Fovea]

53. Propaganda, psyops.

If they are going to use a bunker buster nuke, they might as well drop the easter bunny on top of it.

There is no such weapon that has been tested, and I think there will never be a successful test of one, if by bunker buster, you mean a fission device that can explode after penitrating any significant depth.

An implosion device, such as the core of a fission package relies on almost nano second precision. Imagine firing a rolex out of a cannon, through a steel door and having it keeping perfect time on the other end. That's the technical problem.

No, what they must be meaning, is that they are going to detonate low altitude air burst with maybe some sort of sabot to breach the concrete bunker.

That is not a bunker buster, but rather a very dirty burst. And if we do such a thing, I predict it will start WW4.

[sweetheart]

61. designing a deep earth penetrator

To get it right, i'd fire a multi-staged warhead that
would separate in-air in to a foward, middle, rear and following projectile
mid air. The forward one would be a solid depleted uranium bullet
2000 kilograms, this would penetrate deep enough to form a hole,
right after this bullet would be a shape charge, and the 3rd stage
rear charge would explode just before to act as a backblast to force
the shape charge behind the projectile in to the rock, like a second
gun bullet firing on impact... then the warhead would arrive underground,
the rear projectile a short time after, without any of the
rolex-through-the door problems.

It would even be simpler to simple shoot specially designed multi-charge
penetrators "before" the nuclear blast to give the baby its best shot
at getting deep... but just the physics of pressure waves, and solid
rock don't bode well for penetrating superdeep, even with nukes... yes,
and it would be a dirty burst in central asia!, blowing winds whatever
direction, could wind up killing lots in other places.

As much as i'm sure it's fascinating to shoot these thingies, its
not the sorta thing i'd want to bet my kid's security on.

[Fovea]

98. Yes, a sabot, prolly a slug

of tungsten preceeding the DU.
Which, if you just are using the pressure wave of the explosion from a hundred feet up or so is, as you say, not all that impressive (I suspect a LSC of conventional high explosive would be more effective).


Get too close to impact trigger, and again we have the problem of the back blast the device would have to trigger inside of.

This is not an effective weapon for its expressed purpose, but as a terror device, it is par excellence.
In fact, merely mentioning that you have made one, is a terrorist act, IMO.

[Blutodog]

62. Empty threats

It's all just a bunch of empty threats. Bu$h would have a revolt on his hands in the military if he ordered a nuke strike on Iran right now. At 33% in the polls he can't order a Big Mac and fries and get it on time. This is just more bullying from this gang. This time everyone is aware of their act.

[MrPrax]

64. Good bet...

and of course the day after, the US will point to the radiation as PROOF of an Iranian nuke program and the MSM, without anything else to go on, other than footage of overseas American businesses being burned to the ground with sporatic reports of Americans being killed on sight, will go with the Bush lies (as will most Americans)...

Sad future indeed...

[atomic-fly]

224. exactly...that's why they want to use nukes.

This is very disturbing...

[ramapo]

55. Insane

That's the only word that describes GWB.

[savemefromdumbya]

58. The Americans are not going to buy it this time - Iran 10yrs from nuke

get over it Dick and George. You just want their oil?

Iran are 10 yrs away from nuke according to experts!

[OKthatsIT]

181. We will be under marshal law if bombs drop in Iran

he doesnt give a damn what you think or what Congress thinks

[savemefromdumbya]

200. Custers last stand - eh?

[NorthernSun]

59. shut down US elections

Only chance the Repugs got is an excuse to shut down 2006 elections. Or steal them under the cover of nuclear standoff with Russia or China.

[Daphne08]

60. This is nuts! n/t

[Trevelyan]

63. some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove nucle

Sounds very serious, kos has two stories and link to Agence France Presse reports that the April 17 issue of The New Yorker magazine carries a story on US plans for a massive bombing campaign against Iran, possibly including the use of nuclear weapons.:

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060408061934.4atjkq7n.htm

...The former intelligence officials depicts planning s "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes....

...But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report. ...

..."There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying....The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/5455/68307
===
S. Hersch: U.S. Considers Using Nuclear Weapons on Iran

...Update I failed to realize this at first but some officers tried and failed to get the nuclear option taken off the table. I think that is 1) scary and 2) speaks volumes about its feasibility. What I want to know is, who is pushing for it?

[TankLV]

168. Why do they consider RESIGNING? Why don't the good guys STAY & FIGHT!

Why are they turning the whole building over to the crazies?

This is BAD news.

Bad.

[Raiden]

65. This is batshit insane!!!

Does he really think that the people of Iran will rise up against their elected leaders? Did 9/11 make us want to rise up and overthrow our government? No. It united us. When a nation is attacked by an outside enemy, the people unite. If Bush attacks Iran, that'll be the start of WWIII. Iranians will flood into Iraq, and fight our soldiers there. Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz, blocking the Persian Gulf, and oil prices will skyrocket. I ain't talking 3 bucks a gallon either...

If you really want to destabilize the Middle East and unite the Muslim world against us, attack Iran.

[galatea]

66. in the last 60 years

Americans have been involved in one war war or another, this shouldn't be a surprise and it won't stop.

War is in our blood, it's imprinted in our genetic code.

[crikkett]

71. are bunker-buster nukes even a reality?

I thought funding for their development was cut last year.

[IndianaGreen]

75. Since when has an Act of Congress been an impediment to Bush?

The Laws of the Land are not the bills signed into law by Bush, but whatever Bush says in his signing statements.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. Once you start talking about the....

...development of a new weapon, particularly if it involves nuclear warheads, it becomes a classified program. At that point in time, it essentially drops off the public budget radar...no information about the weapon will be released to the public, and no information can be tracked by the public.

[wordpix2]

104. military has used radioactive depleted uranium weapons for a long time

http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html

Desert Storm veterans along with the people of Iraq and Kuwait were
victims of one of the latest military experiments on human beings.
I believe that the ignorance was culpable and criminal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Dr. Rosalie Bertell
< Biographical Notes >

Introduction:
I first heard about the military using depleted uranium for bullets from the Native Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE) in Gore, Oklahoma. Kerr Magee was operating a factory there, and in a liquid waste spill a young man, about twenty-one years old, was sprayed with the mixture and died. Many members of the public were also exposed...

snip:

I learned many things about the uranium bullets in the process of this research:


They are incendiary, that is after piercing the object they can burst into flame.

They are fragmentary, they disintigrate into small fragments inside the body, and cannot be removed.

They are more dense than lead, and can pierce a bullet- proof vest, or a light armored car or tank.

Because the "enemy" might also use them, the military made uranium armor as a protection.

They were cheap, because the depleted uranium was a waste product of the nuclear-bomb program.

They were radioactive, which meant that even handling them was risky, but no one seemed to be worrying about this!

Research into Gulf War Syndrome
Six years after the Gulf War there is still deep controversy over the causes of the severe health problems observed in the veterans. Reluctantly, the U.S. government has been slowly releasing data on possible Iraqi chemical exposures of the veterans, but many physicians, some of whom have reported that their jobs are being threatened, have said that this information does not explain the variety of symptoms observed. snip

[IndianaGreen]

73. Our Fuehrer doesn't like their small potatoes fuehrer

Bush is just itching to use nukes so that he can blackmail the world to do his bidding. If Bush uses nukes against anyone, the people and nations of world will be justified in terminating his presidency by any means necessary.

[BrklynLiberal]

78. These guys are out to destroy the entire world, and they don't care

who they take with them. Who said W wasn't the AntiChrist?

[shadowknows69]

79. We can't let this happen people

This one act will make America a pariah for all time. The only country to use nuclear weapons twice. I don't want to be a citizen of any country that would do that.

[shain from kane]

133. We all ready used them twice.

But I think that I know what you meant.

[shadowknows69]

135. I know I meant 2 different occasions (wars)

Just so you know I'm not historically challenged

[Pavulon]

198. This is puff

we have not used nuclear weapons in 60 years. Given many "opportunities". The use of nukes on a 3rd world military is not only un-necessary but not in line with american action over the last 3 generations of policy.

[bdamomma]

216. Not in our Name!!!

this illegal invasion of countries must stop, we are not the only ones who have nuclear weapons, this action might bite us all in the ass if these thugs do not stop.

[McCamy Taylor]

80. Bush claimed he doesn't want war--but he wants to use nukes.

[Eric J in MN]

82. Please tell Congress to ban tactical nuclear weapons

Contact info for Congress is at:
www.vote-smart.org

Enter a rep's name on the top-left.

[AlamoDemoc]

87. This is an once again an indication that the Pentagon is waging

Psychological war against Iran and planting stories in the newspapers. That is all.

[springhill]

115. You are delusional.......

Hersh gets his information from insiders that know what is going on. This is very reliable.

[Trevelyan]

88. Rep. Murtha nearly shouted in a speech yesterday that "We would NOT be in

Iran." that the subcommittee he is on would not fund it.

Rep. Murtha has some excellent articles on his website. One article has question and answer:

Jack Murtha's stance on the War in Iraq
Jack Murtha's Iraq Letter to Members of Congress
Jack Murtha Contrasts Presidents Reagan and Bush
Commentary on 3-year Anniversary of Iraq War
Veterans History Project
Social Security
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/2005_12_14_iraq_bush_reagan.html Murtha Contrasts Presidents Reagan and Bush

CONGRESSMAN MURTHA:

...Let me take a few minutes to remark about the irony of President Bush speaking today in the Ronald Reagan Building. President Reagan is credited and justifiably so, for beginning the resurgence of the American military. He’s credited with unleashing the fatal blow against the Soviet Union. And he worked diligently through his second term to reduce the federal deficit including signing into law the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction Act.

I didn’t vote for that. I didn’t agree with the way he was doing it, but he was so concerned about the deficit, he was willing to not only sign that but also to sign a constitutional amendment which would say you can’t spend more than you collect.

Yet given the sorry state of our Army, the erosion of the U.S. credibility in the world, and the deficits as far as the eye can see, you’ve got to believe President Reagan is turning over in his grave.

The Army is broken. At the start of the Reagan buildup in 1981, the military suffered from aging equipment, spare part shortages, unqualified personnel. In large part this was due to the lack of resources provided to the military following Viet Nam. ...

[Vinca]

89. This is the most frightening thing I've ever read.

Even more frightening is that it doesn't come as a surprise. Do you think, during their preplanning (assuming there is any), it will occur to Bushco that China likes Iran and China could turn us to toast?

[Eric J in MN]

95. Contact your Senators

to ban the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

http://contactcongress.blogspot.com/

[springhill]

96. I am betting this will happen before.......

the midterm elections. Everyone they do is calculated to what they think will benefit them.

[Pavulon]

102. Questions

Does this say we are planning the use of nuclear weapons first strike? I mean I'm pretty sure we have had a plan to use nuclear weapons in the mideast on the table before the 67 war.

Planning as a response to an act of war, planning as a response to a bad batch of nachos?

The b-61 mk11 is not a bunker buster, it is a modification of an existing nuclear weapon. It would not cause a contained explosion. Even dialed down to less than a kiloton.

This is a response to the threat to close the straights. france has already threatened to nuke iran.

Is hersh a partial source? This looks like some fox news quality work. Designed with reaction in mind.

[OCDDAVID]

110. Help Me My Polls numbers Are Shrinking!

Only 36% of the Public Approves of me?... Quick... Dick, Karl, Rummy... help me finds me some brown peoples to blow up!

IHateRedState

[AngryOldDem]

134. "If I go down, I'm taking the rest of the world with me!!"

That's probably more along the lines of his thinking.

What possibly makes him think that if we would actually do this (and since it's from Seymour Hersh I have NO reason to doubt the veracity of these plans) that China and Russia will stand by and do nothing?

Insanity combined with hubris combined with divine inspiration. Recipe for the end of the world, if you ask me.

Even as a kid I remember saying that I would see a nuclear war in my lifetime. I was hoping, however, to see 50 before it happened.

[Rex]

105. So it is a-okay to throw around Hitler's name when it is an R doing it.

Just don't be a D and do it, the Rs get all foamy at the mouth and self-righteous.

[nytemare]

106. * doesn't realize that other countries have nukes

And can retaliate against us.

[Rainscents]

109. WORLD WAR III

Here it comes! These people are INSANE!!!

[OCDDAVID]

111. To Quote Blondie

"RAPTURE"

[twaddler01]

121. Looks like you beat me to it

scary and INSANE is right!

[ckramer]

113. The thought of using A-bomb made me sick

Haven't enough Iraqis died in this war of Bush already?

[twaddler01]

120. Welcome WWIII

:nuke:

[lovuian]

122. Who would have thought that America would start WWIII

and be the agressor... I truly think dropping a nuke on Iran is seriously wrong...I can understand why the military is squeemish

After Guatanomo AbuGhahib and Iraq

they have to see Bush is out for himself not the American people

At this point I could see a Military coup happening to stop this madness...

[Bushies gotta go]

123. OMFG

While it seems this nation is waking up to this administration, I find it very difficult to stay out of a deep depression over each and every day's news from these lunatics.

2008 cannot come quickly enough, I fear.

[mconvente]

126. It's time to fucking impeach NOW!!!!!!!

This is our rallying cry people! Tell EVERYONE you know - if you want TWO (YES TWO) Iraqs, then keep this motherfucker in office and have him start nuking everyone - the real Hitler is Bush, and we need him and his entire gang of cronies OUT NOW!

[earthside]

156. No. It is too late for Impeachment.

We need to start demanding the resignations of the entire Bush regime.

RESIGN, NOW!

[Jack Rabbit]

127. Bush's Pax Americana

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
-- Agent France Press

This crisis is an entirely logical outcome of the policy and outrageous behavior of Bush and the neoconservatives. Of course Iran is pursing a nuclear weapons program. She would be stupid not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. If the neocons have their a nation in their sites, all they will do is say that nation is a threat, that it has WMDs or is pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons, whether it is true or not. Iran doesn't want to wait to be invaded and have the CIA made the fall for bad intelligence while some US administrator in Tehran unilaterally rewrites the laws on foreign investment. If the neocons are going to claim a nation has nukes as a pretext to invade, that nation is well advised to make sure the neocons are right.

No one should welcome Iran to the nuclear club. It makes the world a more dangerous place. But we know why they are doing it. It isn't the Iranians who have made the world dangerous.

Another reason that this is a logical outcome of the behavior of Bush and the neoconservatives is that, with the US military tied down next door occupying Iraq, there really is no US military force that can strike Iran were that necessary. A nuclear strike becomes an alternative to invasion and occupation. Bush's occupation of Iraq is going badly. Whether Mr. Bush has the capacity to understand it or not, somebody in the White House or the State Department or the Pentagon undoubtedly realizes that an occupation of Iran would be even more difficult. Iran is about three times larger than Iraq geographically and has about two and a half times as many people. While Iran's Islamic Republic is not a true democracy, it resembles one far more than Saddam's Iraq did; there will be even less reason to suppose US forces will be greeted as liberators by the Iranians than there was to suppose Iraqis would. The population of Iran are more homogeneous than that of Iraq; unlike Iraq, resistance to occupation will be unified.

Bush has really made a mess of the Pax Americana. Bush's American imperialism has all the bad effects that an imperial system imposes both on its colonies and its own masses at home, but none of the benefits of sustained political stability or security.

As long as Iran is about five years away from developing a nuclear weapon, there is time to deal with the threat. I would prefer that, like Iraq, Mr. Bush leave this to his successor. Unfortunately, unlike Iraq, Iran may be a real threat that requires a real solution. Yet five years into Mr. Bush's reign of terror and error, we have no reason to have any confidence in him to solve any urgent problem.

Right now, Iran is less of an urgent problem than Bush is. It is no more a danger to international peace or US national security than Bush is. If Iran is such an urgent problem that it needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, or even if Iran is a less urgent problem but for which a constructive policy needs to be developed sooner rather than later, than the US needs competent leadership sooner rather than later. We need to replace this clumsy junta with a competent administration, sooner rather than later.

[vickitulsa]

229. Excellent observations, Jack Rabbit.

I'm so glad the public here in the U.S. has now been warned of Bush&Co's plans to nuke Iran, so that they have more urgent reasons to want to stand up to that insane cabal and remove them from power, as you say, "sooner rather than later."

A sense of urgency is what we need, IMO -- and not just from DUers who have felt it for a long time, but from the American population as a whole! If a great many U.S. citizens hear this news of Bush's plans to nuke Iran and feel a sense of panic at the very idea that he might actually DO it, maybe they will get vocal about protesting such action.

What frightens me is that I suspect Bush&Co do know they might be removed from power at any point now, and therefore they might be rushing to do all the damage they can before that happens ... leaving the huge "mess" in their wake for Dems to have to cope with....

[daveskilt]

128. If bush does this he is an enemy to the US people and all people

He and his gang of thugs would become enemy combatants. All bets are off at that point.

[Donailin]

143. "if"????

If???

He not only is the enemy of the US and all people, he's the enemy of every atom in the universe.. . !

[stevietheman]

173. Bush is already essentially a declared enemy of the republic...

this douchebag already deserves forced removal. But with attacking Iran, the people will finally have to rise up and do their duty.

[Theres-a]

132. Kicked rec'd and emailed

It's now the No. 2 most emailed story.Number one is a story about a rabbit.x(

[Janice325]

136. I really don't know what to say..

I was worried before, but it's getting beyond that.I get angy a lot, but right now I'm kinda numb and at a loss for words.
How to they keep getting by with this stuff????
kicked and recommended.

[killbotfactory]

137. Fucking great

Well, his poll numbers are down, he has to do something. Might as well use our nukular weapons, what good are they just as a deterrent?

Will the public sit back and let this insane shit start WWIII?

[katinmn]

138. Can Congress stop campaigning for 5 minutes and stop this?

So now Junior wants to bring freedom to the Iranians by nuking them. How special.:sarcasm:

[0rganism]

140. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is only posturing

The backlash against the US worldwide if nuclear weapons were used against Iran would put a serious and damaging crimp in corporate profits. We won't see that happening anytime soon, although the neo-cons regard it as a sound policy move to make the Iranians think our leadership is far more dangerous and psychopathic than their own. That's my position, and we'd all better hope I'm right.

[jwirr]

141. Could this totally insane idea be a selective *ss leak to

divert attention from the first leak? It is sure to get attention and much discussion and it has almost already overshadowed the CIA agents betrayal by *ss.

[bling bling]

145. I'm pretty sure Hersh also said last year we would attack Iran LAST summer

Or at least he said that's what the administration was hoping for. I saw it on the Daily Show. I remember hoping that because Hersh was broadcasting their plans, the administration would be forced to either delay them or change tactics. I also remember hoping Hersh watched his back.

[rocktivity]

149. Mexico's Vincente Fox is the REAL iminent threat to America!

He lets his citizens cross the border to find work in Amercia, which weakens both the earning AND political power of its legitimate working people! Bush should tell Fox to either start solving his country's economic problems, seal his side of the border, or be foricbly removed from power!!!

:eyes:
rocknation

[Paulie]

150. Watch another asian country get involved

They will put some "defensive nukes" on Iranian soil soon on request of the Iranian government. Either China or India, probably China since they would be less of a threat to Pakistan than India.

We have lost our place as leader of the world.

[abester]

152. I ask you: Why shouldn't they use nukes?

After all, America has the doubtful honor of being the first, and only country in the history of mankind to use these infernal weapons of mass destruction in time of war.

It is rather piquant as well that they both should happen to have been used against CIVILIAN population centers, the pretext of 'strategic millitary targets' can't taken serious by anyone who possess at least one atom of interest in the truth.

Fire bombing german cities in the heat of war, both sides commiting atrocities, is at least understandable, but to use these atomic furnaces against, whose lethal and radiogenic effects were of course already well known at the time by scientists, an essentially defenceless and contained adversary who also happened to open to surrender - and all just because to impress the russians, well, that would have earned the commanding officers and Truman a spot at nuremburg - at the defendants stance of course - for crimes against humanity.

That is all well and good, after all, who would argue a couple of hunders of thausands of non-american lives isn't a small price to pay for hegomony?

And here we stand, today, with America being the one, again, to unilaterally declare the NPT void, and start rearming again. Even contemplating using these inhuman weapons of mass destruction against a soveirgn nation whose only crime is to stand up for its own freedom, and in doing so, endangering the petty stakes of the American Empire in the region.

Don't let anyone fool you, bunker busters are just as much an atomic bomb as its bigger cousin onboard the Enola Gay 60 years ago.

I used to have respect for America, for its theoretically advanced democracy, its values, etc. Somehow, that seems to have evaporated, in fact, along with many others, I feel the USA is the single biggest threat to humanity these days and for years to come.

Please don't get me wrong, I have of course no grudge at all against the people as such, just certain corpocratic elements that have seized power. Altough the fact that, despite election fraud, 50% of american voters, more than 50 million I understand, actually voted for and endorsed this evil maniac, doesn't stem me very optimistic, neither does the fact that the only real resistance he got was of some relatively mild disgression (warentless tapping) - which pales in comparison to his other deeds, which are for more serious and posses great longevity.

I beg of you American Citizens, those that still have a shred of sense left in them, to do anything in your power to kick this clown out of office along with his hencemen, and to take back the power and put it where it belongs - with you!

You might actually save humanity a great deal of suffering....

[Pavulon]

199. The US

Can account for every single nuclear weapon created. Its location, destruction, state of readiness.

The soviet stockpile of thermonuclear weapons is a far greater threat. So is the community of scientists who created their weapons. Ours have 6 figure jobs at LANL and other defense contractors, theirs are destitute. The us and other nuclear powers are developing low yield weapons for this use. As well as other nuclear powers are continuing research in to advancing design of the thermonuclear bomb.

The US nuclear bombs saved lives of Japanese and americans. A glimpse at what happened on okinawa would be a front runner of action on the main island.

Japan would have been divided, like europe and a flash point for world war, had communist russia taken part of japan.

I would not concern my self with bullshit fox news quality assertions with no source. Remember the oil bourse. If you followed those threads we were supposed to invade iran last month.

Foreign Policy and Jane's Defense are much better sources for information than the mirror image of rupert murdoch.

[tjwash]

158. Insanity is doing the same fucking thing and expecting different results.

God damn mother fucking, warmongering, murdering, innocent person killing, sons of bitches. I hope that after the war crimes trial, there is a personalized gas chamber in Hague, and I hope each mother fucker that signs any resolution to do this, conservative, OR liberal gets led into it.
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[earthside]

159. Dems Being Sucked Into This

Beware.

Most of the Democrats in the U.S. House have already been suckered into the warmongering against Iran.

Don't forget the Iraq Liberation Act that Bush referred to constantly as a justification for war and to claim "bipartisan support" for the unprovoked attack on Iraq.

Tell your Congressperson to drop co-sponsorhip of H.R.282, the Iran Freedom Act.

Title: To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran.

Here is a list of the current co-sponsors and when they added their names.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. - 1/6/2005
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 4/5/2005
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/30/2005
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 3/16/2005
Rep Allen, Thomas H. - 7/12/2005
Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 1/6/2005
Rep Baca, Joe - 4/5/2005
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 1/6/2005
Rep Baird, Brian - 6/7/2005
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 2/15/2005
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 7/14/2005
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 5/10/2005
Rep Barrow, John - 4/21/2005
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 5/17/2005
Rep Bass, Charles F. - 4/5/2005
Rep Bean, Melissa L. - 3/8/2005
Rep Beauprez, Bob - 5/12/2005
Rep Berkley, Shelley - 1/6/2005
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 1/6/2005
Rep Berry, Marion - 5/23/2005
Rep Biggert, Judy - 1/6/2005
Rep Bilirakis, Michael - 5/5/2005
Rep Bishop, Rob - 12/14/2005
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. - 5/10/2005
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. - 6/14/2005
Rep Blackburn, Marsha - 6/16/2005
Rep Blunt, Roy - 2/14/2006
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood - 1/6/2005
Rep Boehner, John A. - 9/29/2005
Rep Bonilla, Henry - 2/15/2005
Rep Bonner, Jo - 4/5/2005
Rep Bono, Mary - 2/17/2005
Rep Boozman, John - 3/14/2005
Rep Boren, Dan - 5/3/2005
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. - 4/28/2005
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. - 4/5/2005
Rep Boyd, Allen - 5/3/2005
Rep Bradley, Jeb - 4/14/2005
Rep Brady, Robert A. - 5/5/2005
Rep Brown, Corrine - 6/14/2005
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 5/10/2005
Rep Brown, Sherrod - 6/30/2005
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 3/16/2005
Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/7/2005
Rep Burton, Dan - 1/6/2005
Rep Butterfield, G. K. - 2/16/2005
Rep Calvert, Ken - 6/27/2005
Rep Camp, Dave - 6/14/2005
Rep Campbell, John - 3/9/2006
Rep Cannon, Chris - 6/14/2005
Rep Cantor, Eric - 1/6/2005
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore - 6/23/2005
Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. - 5/3/2005
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. - 3/14/2005
Rep Carnahan, Russ - 5/24/2005
Rep Carter, John R. - 3/17/2005
Rep Case, Ed - 6/14/2005
Rep Chabot, Steve - 1/6/2005
Rep Chandler, Ben - 1/6/2005
Rep Chocola, Chris - 5/17/2005
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 2/17/2005
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel - 5/17/2005
Rep Clyburn, James E. - 6/7/2005
Rep Coble, Howard - 4/8/2005
Rep Cole, Tom - 3/10/2005
Rep Conaway, K. Michael - 5/10/2005
Rep Cooper, Jim - 5/10/2005
Rep Costa, Jim - 3/14/2005
Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 5/10/2005
Rep Cox, Christopher - 1/6/2005
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. - 5/17/2005
Rep Crenshaw, Ander - 6/17/2005
Rep Crowley, Joseph - 1/6/2005
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 5/24/2005
Rep Cuellar, Henry - 3/17/2005
Rep Culberson, John Abney - 4/28/2005
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 5/24/2005
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 4/8/2005
Rep Davis, Artur - 4/5/2005
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 2/16/2005
Rep Davis, Geoff - 4/5/2005
Rep Davis, Jim - 5/10/2005
Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 1/6/2005
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 4/8/2005
Rep Davis, Susan A. - 10/18/2005
Rep Deal, Nathan - 2/28/2006
Rep DeGette, Diana - 5/17/2005
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 5/23/2005
Rep Dent, Charles W. - 2/9/2005
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln - 1/6/2005
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario - 1/6/2005
Rep Dicks, Norman D. - 3/8/2006
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 2/9/2005
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 4/19/2005
Rep Drake, Thelma D. - 4/14/2005
Rep Edwards, Chet - 3/14/2005
Rep Emanuel, Rahm - 2/9/2005
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 6/14/2005
Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 1/6/2005
Rep English, Phil - 6/30/2005
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 4/28/2005
Rep Etheridge, Bob - 2/15/2006
Rep Evans, Lane - 4/19/2005
Rep Everett, Terry - 12/8/2005
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. - 1/6/2005
Rep Farr, Sam - 6/14/2005
Rep Fattah, Chaka - 10/28/2005
Rep Feeney, Tom - 5/17/2005
Rep Ferguson, Mike - 3/14/2005
Rep Filner, Bob - 4/14/2005
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. - 4/14/2005
Rep Foley, Mark - 1/6/2005
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 6/14/2005
Rep Ford, Harold E., Jr. - 5/3/2005
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff - 9/8/2005
Rep Fortuno, Luis G. - 7/28/2005
Rep Fossella, Vito - 2/8/2006
Rep Foxx, Virginia - 5/23/2005
Rep Frank, Barney - 2/8/2006
Rep Franks, Trent - 5/12/2005
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. - 6/14/2005
Rep Gallegly, Elton - 6/30/2005
Rep Garrett, Scott - 1/6/2005
Rep Gerlach, Jim - 5/10/2005
Rep Gibbons, Jim - 7/12/2005
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. - 6/7/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil - 5/12/2005
Rep Gohmert, Louie - 5/24/2005
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. - 5/10/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/24/2005
Rep Gordon, Bart - 2/9/2005
Rep Graves, Sam - 5/24/2005
Rep Green, Al - 6/14/2005
Rep Green, Gene - 3/16/2005
Rep Green, Mark - 1/6/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 5/12/2005
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. - 3/17/2005
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 11/10/2005
Rep Harman, Jane - 4/14/2005
Rep Harris, Katherine - 1/6/2005
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 4/8/2005
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 4/19/2005
Rep Hastings, Doc - 5/3/2005
Rep Hayes, Robin - 4/19/2005
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 5/23/2005
Rep Hefley, Joel - 6/14/2005
Rep Hensarling, Jeb - 5/3/2005
Rep Herger, Wally - 3/16/2005
Rep Herseth, Stephanie - 4/19/2005
Rep Higgins, Brian - 5/12/2005
Rep Holden, Tim - 2/28/2006
Rep Holt, Rush D. - 4/28/2005
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 5/24/2005
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. - 5/12/2005
Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. - 6/27/2005
Rep Inglis, Bob - 4/14/2005
Rep Inslee, Jay - 5/3/2005
Rep Israel, Steve - 1/6/2005
Rep Issa, Darrell E. - 2/15/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 5/12/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 7/22/2005
Rep Jefferson, William J. - 4/19/2005
Rep Jindal, Bobby - 3/14/2005
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice - 6/7/2005
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. - 1/6/2005
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 2/8/2006
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/7/2005
Rep Keller, Ric - 5/17/2005
Rep Kelly, Sue W. - 2/9/2005
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 4/14/2005
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 5/24/2005
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 5/12/2005
Rep Kind, Ron - 5/5/2005
Rep King, Peter T. - 7/14/2005
Rep King, Steve - 4/21/2005
Rep Kingston, Jack - 5/10/2005
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven - 1/6/2005
Rep Kline, John - 2/15/2005
Rep Knollenberg, Joe - 3/17/2005
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. - 3/16/2005
Rep LaHood, Ray - 6/30/2005
Rep Langevin, James R. - 6/22/2005
Rep Lantos, Tom - 1/6/2005
Rep Larsen, Rick - 1/6/2005
Rep Larson, John B. - 6/17/2005
Rep LaTourette, Steve C. - 6/14/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara - 3/15/2006
Rep Levin, Sander M. - 5/26/2005
Rep Lewis, Jerry - 4/28/2005
Rep Lewis, John - 4/5/2005
Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/16/2005
Rep Linder, John - 5/23/2005
Rep Lipinski, Daniel - 2/9/2005
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. - 3/8/2005
Rep Lofgren, Zoe - 6/14/2005
Rep Lowey, Nita M. - 4/28/2005
Rep Lucas, Frank D. - 6/16/2005
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. - 6/7/2005
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. - 6/7/2005
Rep Mack, Connie - 3/8/2005
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 4/14/2005
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 5/26/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny - 5/24/2005
Rep Markey, Edward J. - 3/7/2006
Rep Marshall, Jim - 5/3/2005
Rep Matheson, Jim - 4/19/2005
Rep Matsui, Doris O. - 4/8/2005
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn - 3/14/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. - 2/15/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 1/6/2005
Rep McCrery, Jim - 4/8/2005
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. - 3/8/2005
Rep McHugh, John M. - 3/1/2005
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 11/10/2005
Rep McKeon, Howard P. (Buck) - 3/28/2006
Rep McMorris, Cathy - 4/21/2005
Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 2/15/2005
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 5/23/2005
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. - 2/17/2005
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. - 5/12/2005
Rep Melancon, Charlie - 3/16/2005
Rep Menendez, Robert - 1/6/2005
Rep Mica, John L. - 1/6/2005
Rep Michaud, Michael H. - 4/5/2005
Rep Miller, Brad - 4/19/2005
Rep Miller, Candice S. - 2/16/2005
Rep Miller, George - 4/19/2005
Rep Miller, Jeff - 5/24/2005
Rep Moore, Dennis - 5/24/2005
Rep Moore, Gwen - 7/12/2005
Rep Murphy, Tim - 4/8/2005
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. - 5/23/2005
Rep Myrick, Sue - 1/6/2005
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 1/6/2005
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. - 5/3/2005
Rep Neal, Richard E. - 5/24/2005
Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 7/27/2005
Rep Northup, Anne M. - 4/21/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 1/6/2005
Rep Nunes, Devin - 1/6/2005
Rep Nussle, Jim - 3/14/2006
Rep Olver, John W. - 2/28/2006
Rep Osborne, Tom - 3/2/2006
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) - 9/29/2005
Rep Owens, Major R. - 5/10/2005
Rep Oxley, Michael G. - 9/29/2005
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. - 2/16/2005
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 5/3/2005
Rep Pastor, Ed - 3/9/2006
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 3/7/2006
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 6/7/2005
Rep Pelosi, Nancy - 6/7/2005
Rep Pence, Mike - 1/6/2005
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 3/7/2006
Rep Peterson, John E. - 5/3/2005
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 2/9/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell - 1/6/2005
Rep Poe, Ted - 4/5/2005
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 3/16/2005
Rep Pomeroy, Earl - 7/20/2005
Rep Porter, Jon C. - 1/6/2005
Rep Price, Tom - 4/19/2005
Rep Pryce, Deborah - 7/12/2005
Rep Putnam, Adam H. - 4/21/2005
Rep Radanovich, George - 6/14/2005
Rep Ramstad, Jim - 5/5/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 5/17/2005
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. - 5/10/2005
Rep Reichert, David G. - 5/3/2005
Rep Renzi, Rick - 2/9/2005
Rep Reyes, Silvestre - 5/12/2005
Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. - 4/5/2005
Rep Rogers, Harold - 7/14/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike - 4/8/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 5/12/2005
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 1/6/2005
Rep Ross, Mike - 5/23/2005
Rep Rothman, Steven R. - 1/6/2005
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille - 11/4/2005
Rep Royce, Edward R. - 3/15/2006
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch - 7/12/2005
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 4/14/2005
Rep Ryan, Paul - 1/6/2005
Rep Ryan, Tim - 6/14/2005
Rep Ryun, Jim - 5/24/2005
Rep Salazar, John T. - 6/7/2005
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 4/5/2005
Rep Sanchez, Loretta - 3/8/2005
Rep Sanders, Bernard - 6/28/2005
Rep Saxton, Jim - 1/6/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 2/15/2005
Rep Schiff, Adam B. - 4/5/2005
Rep Schmidt, Jean - 3/14/2006
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. - 2/15/2005
Rep Schwarz, John J.H. "Joe" - 7/12/2005
Rep Scott, David - 3/17/2005
Rep Scott, Robert C. - 6/14/2005
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 3/10/2005
Rep Sessions, Pete - 3/17/2005
Rep Shadegg, John B. - 4/19/2005
Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. - 3/8/2005
Rep Shays, Christopher - 4/8/2005
Rep Sherman, Brad - 1/6/2005
Rep Shimkus, John - 1/6/2005
Rep Shuster, Bill - 6/23/2005
Rep Simmons, Rob - 5/17/2005
Rep Simpson, Michael K. - 3/17/2005
Rep Skelton, Ike - 5/3/2005
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh - 5/10/2005
Rep Smith, Adam - 6/7/2005
Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 1/6/2005
Rep Smith, Lamar - 5/23/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. - 6/23/2005
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 5/10/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 1/6/2005
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 2/15/2005
Rep Strickland, Ted - 5/24/2005
Rep Stupak, Bart - 9/8/2005
Rep Sullivan, John - 1/6/2005
Rep Sweeney, John E. - 11/8/2005
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 1/6/2005
Rep Tanner, John S. - 5/23/2005
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. - 11/4/2005
Rep Taylor, Charles H. - 6/30/2005
Rep Terry, Lee - 4/5/2005
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. - 11/18/2005
Rep Thompson, Mike - 5/23/2005
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/12/2005
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. - 5/5/2005
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 3/28/2006
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 5/10/2005
Rep Udall, Mark - 5/3/2005
Rep Udall, Tom - 3/14/2006
Rep Upton, Fred - 4/8/2005
Rep Van Hollen, Chris - 3/16/2005
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. - 4/5/2005
Rep Walden, Greg - 9/8/2005
Rep Walsh, James T. - 2/9/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach - 5/3/2005
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie - 4/5/2005
Rep Waxman, Henry A. - 3/1/2005
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. - 4/5/2005
Rep Weldon, Curt - 5/23/2005
Rep Weldon, Dave - 4/8/2005
Rep Weller, Jerry - 1/6/2005
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. - 9/29/2005
Rep Wexler, Robert - 1/6/2005
Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 5/17/2005
Rep Wilson, Heather - 6/28/2005
Rep Wilson, Joe - 1/6/2005
Rep Wolf, Frank R. - 11/1/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 5/24/2005
Rep Wu, David - 5/10/2005
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 4/5/2005
Rep Young, C. W. Bill - 5/17/2005

From Thomas

[Voltaire99]

213. Dems aren't being "sucked" into anything

As in the invasion of Iraq, so too in any attack on Iran: Dem politicians will be on board waving their flags.

[Miss Chybil]

160. It's the old "We're the only ones who are allowed to have nukes and

use them" plan.

[oblivious]

161. So Iran has no nukes and has said repeatedly it does not want nukes.

1. Iran has no nukes.
2. Iran has said repeatedly it does not want nuclear weapons.
3. Iran is presently in 100% compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
4. The US has just made a deal with India which is not following the NPT.
5. The IAEA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iran is doing anything beyond its rights under the NPT.

And despite all of this, the US is contemplating the use of nukes against Iran's legal facilities.

This is evil.

[progressivebydesign]

162. Aren't nukes WMDs? How can WE use them, but kill others for havin them??

WTF??? Do you all realize the inanity of this??? WE are going to NUKE Iran for planning to build nukes in 10 years???? Think about this. We are nuking someone for building nukes. Who died and made US in charge of the fucking world? We cannot have another war. Goddamn it! Someone with some fucking balls in the media needs out OUT THE PNAC ROADMAP RIGHT NOW!!! Fuck!

[nonconformist]

165. Because we're AMERICA, DAMMIT!

Rulers of Earth!

*chest thump*

I know, it's insane isn't it?

[Imagevision]

164. The GOP is about to show it's people how far they'll go to remain in power

the lower Bush and the republicans sink in the polls, the closer we get to the November elections the more louder the sound of war drums will be heard.

This president will nuke another country and murder perhaps a million+ people to instill even more fear on the american people... But isn't fear the way to control the masses??!!...

[BattyDem]

166. I've said it before and I'll say it again

If we nuke a country - ANY country - that has not attacked us in any way, we are toast. The rest of the world WILL be coming to get us. :scared:

[TankLV]

170. And if we nuke another country, especially when that country has not nuked

us first, I HOPE AND PRAY that the rest of the world will "come and get us".

That is now my fervent hope and prayer.

[Tight_rope]

222. It's sad...but this seems to be the only option of getting rid of BushCo!

[IndianaGreen]

169. Divine Straker test in Nevada is for nuke technology to be used in Iran

This story was just published today:

Bush administration 'secretly plans air strikes' as it seeks regime change in Iran

By Raymond Whitaker

Published: 09 April 2006

One option under consideration, Mr Hersh reports, involves the possible use of a B61 nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb against Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz. Last week the Federation of American Scientists alleged that a weapons test to be carried out in the Nevada desert in June was designed to simulate the effects of just such a bomb. Conventional explosives would be used, it said, for "a low-yield nuclear weapon ground shock simulation against an underground target".

The US Defence Threat Reduction Agency told The Independent on Sunday that the test, codenamed "Divine Strake", was intended "to assess the capability of computer codes" to predict the effects of the explosion. The experiment aimed to improve "warfighters' confidence in their ability to plan to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets". It did not refer to tactical nuclear weapons like the B61.

According to Mr Hersh, some officials are shocked at what they describe as "operational" planning which goes far beyond the usual work on hypothetical scenarios. One former defence official is quoted as saying the planning was based on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article356679.ece

Here is the original story about Reid:

Reid assured 'Divine Strake' will be safe

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday that he's satisfied with the Pentagon's explanation about an upcoming test at the Nevada Test Site, and has no fears about the health or safety of Nevadans.

Reid made the comments after meeting with the Pentagon official who stirred controversy last week by saying a test planned for June of a 700-ton explosive would create "a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas."

"The language in the media has unfortunately blown this issue out of proportion," said Reid after meeting with James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

"We discussed the details of this operation tonight, and I now feel comfortable that DTRA is taking all necessary precautions to make sure the test is done safely," Reid said.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/apr/06/040610266.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2213901

[dysfunctional press]

171. Dumbshits

"...a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government".

a sustained bombing campaign in iran will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the people, and to inflame their hatred of the U.S.

these guys are playing dangerous games and NEED to GO NOW- if not by impeachment, then maybe it's time to explore other....'options'.

[stevietheman]

172. If Bush believes the American people won't rise up over this, he's beyond

cuckoo crazy.

[daveskilt]

179. unless it is on american idol they won't give a shit

a million brown people in johnny a-rab land mean nothing to the fox watching proles.


on edit - the distinction that these are persians and not arabs is important - they are a unified country and culture with a long history and not a made up convenient conglomoration of different peoples. attacking Iran is not like attacking iraq, it's like attacking britain or Russia or Japan. This is one of the few countries with that kind of 1000 year plus history - they will not roll over or be another iraq with insurgency. they will fight every step of the way with everything they have - as they should.

[agincourt]

174. If there is anything this group has talent for,

It's pulling dirty rotten shit on it's opponents and making sure Americans go down with them. Polls at 35%? Screw 'em! I'll start a war we can't win, if we can't rule no one else will. I put nothing beyond them.

[IndianaGreen]

175. And if a war doesn't work, they will stage a terrorist "incident"

to frighten all the sheep back in line.

[Canuckistanian]

176. Proud to be the 50th...

My wife and I are appalled at the thought of ANY nuclear weapons being used again in human history.

[Minstrel Boy]

178. "Foreign Affairs": "winnable" US pre-emptive strike on Russia and China

From the March/April issue ("Foreign Affairs" is published by the Council on Foreign Relations)

...

This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever -- because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.

One's views on the implications of this change will depend on one's theoretical perspective. Hawks, who believe that the United States is a benevolent force in the world, will welcome the new nuclear era because they trust that U.S. dominance in both conventional and nuclear weapons will help deter aggression by other countries. For example, as U.S. nuclear primacy grows, China's leaders may act more cautiously on issues such as Taiwan, realizing that their vulnerable nuclear forces will not deter U.S. intervention -- and that Chinese nuclear threats could invite a U.S. strike on Beijing's arsenal. But doves, who oppose using nuclear threats to coerce other states and fear an emboldened and unconstrained United States, will worry. Nuclear primacy might lure Washington into more aggressive behavior, they argue, especially when combined with U.S. dominance in so many other dimensions of national power. Finally, a third group -- owls, who worry about the possibility of inadvertent conflict -- will fret that U.S. nuclear primacy could prompt other nuclear powers to adopt strategic postures, such as by giving control of nuclear weapons to lower-level commanders, that would make an unauthorized nuclear strike more likely -- thereby creating what strategic theorists call "crisis instability."

...

To determine how much the nuclear balance has changed since the Cold War, we ran a computer model of a hypothetical U.S. attack on Russia's nuclear arsenal using the standard unclassified formulas that defense analysts have used for decades. We assigned U.S. nuclear warheads to Russian targets on the basis of two criteria: the most accurate weapons were aimed at the hardest targets, and the fastest-arriving weapons at the Russian forces that can react most quickly. Because Russia is essentially blind to a submarine attack from the Pacific and would have great difficulty detecting the approach of low-flying stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles, we targeted each Russian weapon system with at least one submarine-based warhead or cruise missile. An attack organized in this manner would give Russian leaders virtually no warning.

This simple plan is presumably less effective than Washington's actual strategy, which the U.S. government has spent decades perfecting. The real U.S. war plan may call for first targeting Russia's command and control, sabotaging Russia's radar stations, or taking other preemptive measures -- all of which would make the actual U.S. force far more lethal than our model assumes.

According to our model, such a simplified surprise attack would have a good chance of destroying every Russian bomber base, submarine, and ICBM. This finding is not based on best-case assumptions or an unrealistic scenario in which U.S. missiles perform perfectly and the warheads hit their targets without fail. Rather, we used standard assumptions to estimate the likely inaccuracy and unreliability of U.S. weapons systems. Moreover, our model indicates that all of Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal would still be destroyed even if U.S. weapons were 20 percent less accurate than we assumed, or if U.S. weapons were only 70 percent reliable, or if Russian ICBM silos were 50 percent "harder" (more reinforced, and hence more resistant to attack) than we expected. (Of course, the unclassified estimates we used may understate the capabilities of U.S. forces, making an attack even more likely to succeed.)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

[Kool Kitty]

180. These people are barking mad.

If they do this, we are finished. I have never understood the arrogance of the United States' nuclear stance-we are allowed to have and use nukes, but no one else should have or use them.

[ronnie624]

188. A completely self-serving stance

to be sure, but one that millions of U.S. Americans in their profound, seemingly unparalleled nationalist chauvinism hold to. The belief that one country above all others has the exclusive right to dominate and attack other nations with righteous impunity is deeply irrational.

[Old and In the Way]

182. Bush needs to talk to people other than his "yes" men.

Really, I hope Poppy is back on speaking terms....he needs to knock some sense into Dimson.

This will not go over well and I think 2 major things will happen.

(1) Oil will be disrupted, big time. We'll see pipelines lit up and tankers sunk. Oil goes through the roof.
(2) The rest of the world dumps USD. That'll make our money worth less, a lot less. Which means we'll be paying a lot more for basic goods and services.

There will be consequences to this country, but I don't think that enters into the Bush equation. It's about him and the Republican Party losing majority control of Congress. That's what is motivating this decision.

[mallard]

183. Re: intention to foment a popular uprising...

...against an unreasonable and unrepresentative ruling elite -

could certainly turn out to be the case, if they decide to start another killing spree based on bad information and predictions of success.

[HuffleClaw]

186. view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

oh hell, ANYONE who dares oppose their imperialist goals is 'hitler'. they've compared saddam, chavez and ahmadinejad to hitler. and some domestic opponents too iirc. but i suppose this demonstrates the complete ignorant simplicity of the bushco. mindset.

they will use ANY justification for the coming war. some have suggested they might even claim that iran is to blame for 'a new killer strain of BIRD FLU'.

[Vektor]

187. Oh holy shit. Nuclear?!

Jesus, that is one scary notion. I am deathly afraid of the sort of backlash that will come upon this nation if Bush uses NUCLEAR weapons. My god, why? Of course, no bombs are "good"... but holy shit.

[Kutjara]

192. So let me see if I have this right.

Mahatma Gandhi - shot dead
John Kennedy - shot dead
Robert Kennedy - shot dead
Martin Luther King Jr. - shot dead

George W Bush - alive and well.

If there is a God, he's on the wrong side.

[Lochloosa]

196. Welcome to DU Kutjara

:toast:

[Vektor]

206. I agree heartily...

Something is definitely wrong with that. Sadly, courageous leaders with positive messages are often targeted by evil, while evil is just allowed to run amok unchecked. Unfair isn't it?

Welcome to DU! I am flattered your first post was to me!

Enjoy your stay here. :hi:

[baby_mouse]

193. What for?

What are these people THINKING?

[Minstrel Boy]

195. To make nuclear weapons thinkable.

That's what they're thinking.

They want to use them to simply demonstrate that they're willing to use them. A previously inconceivable show of force.

As in 1945, the intended impact is not the actual target.

[baby_mouse]

228. Hasn't it occurred to them that other people might be willing to use them

against THEM?

[Kutjara]

208. Missed opportunities and the final reel

First, thanks for the warm welcome. I'm glad I stumbled across this haven of like-minded souls. I was beginning to think democracy was a dirty word in modern America.

Now, on with the show.

One of the aspects of the current demonisation of Iran that truly angers me is the missed opportunity. Just before 9/11, I was talking to an Iranian friend about his country. Now, in his youth, this man had been very pro-Revolution, had served in the Ayatollah's army on the Iraqui border and had chanted slogans in the streets of Tehran. He had, to use the tired metaphor, drunk the Kool-Aid. No better example of the slavering maw of fundamentalism portrayed by the Western media can be imagined. Yet, here he was, in his late 30s, a middle-class IT consultant, living with his wife and children in London, about as politically extreme as Paddington Bear.

I asked him what had changed his views. His response was enlightening. He said that he, like most of his generation, was simply tired of politics and religion. "Iran is probably the most secular country in the Middle East," he told me. "We are so sick of having religion rammed down our throats that nobody wants to hear about it any more. I think you'll be surprised at the way Iran develops in the next ten years. We'll be a prosperous, modern country."

At the time of our conversation, the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) not only admitted women, but several women had risen to positions of prominence (not nearly enough, but then we can say that about Western political institutions as well). Moderation was breaking out all over and tentative feelers were extended to the West with a view to normalising relations. There were even moves to open up the economy to foreign investment. Articles appeared in the Western press (at least in Europe, I don't know about the US), saying that Iran was charting a course that may point the way to reconciling Islam with the needs of a modern society. In short, it appeared that Iran was emerging from a long dark time into the light. Prosperity beckoned. They had a long way to go, but at least they were moving.

Then along came Cowboy George with his "Axis of Evil" mallarky and his 'yippie-ki-ay' brand of policymaking. Drawing on the intellectual tradition of John Wayne and Sgt. Rock, this failed baseball manager quickly dished-out 'good guy' and 'bad guy' labels to the countries of the world (like kids about to play cops and robbers). Unfortunately, Iran got one of the 'bad guy' labels. The problem was, the reforms sweeping Iran made them an unlikely candidate for a black hat. Nothing ruins a good shoot-em-up more than an ambiguous villain; something clearly had to be done.

Roll on five years, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and relentless 'axis of evil' propaganda; Iran has once again withdrawn behind walls of hostility and rhetoric. Its economy is contracting and the plans to open up to tourism and investment have died. Most tellingly, the much anticipated election of a reformist government in 2005 never happened. Instead, largely in reaction to perceived American expansionism and excesses in Iraq, the Iranian people elected hard-liners to defend their interests. Liberalisation could wait. This was a battle for survival.

Of course, for Bush and his PNAC cronies, this was the perfect outcome. Now, America could poke Iran with a stick and be assured of receiving a spitting, hissing response that they could point to as evidence of Iran's "rogue state" tendencies. Now that Iran is playing the 'bad guy' part according to the script, the Hollywood Western that Dubyah has playing in his head can move onto the final act. Marshall Bush can have his shootout with Deadeye Ahmadinejad. And only one hombre is gonna walk away alive. The only problem is that the Marshall seems not to realise that he's not using a Colt 45, he's using nukes; so nobody gets to walk away alive.

It is unutterably dispiriting that the lives and livlihoods of countless Iranians, Americans (no doubt) others will be sacrificed so that an overgrown adolescent can live out his movie fantasies.

Top of the world, ma.

[Trevelyan]

209. I hope this article linked by Citizens for Legitimate Gvt. is accurate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/dl0902.xml

Who to believe?
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

Last Sunday, we revealed that several of Britain's defence chiefs were going to meet to discuss the effects on British interests of a military strike on Iran by the United States to destroy that county's capacity to build a nuclear bomb. Our story was categorically denied by Ministry of Defence officials, who told Sean Rayment, our Defence Correspondent, that there was "no truth in it whatsoever".

=Yet those officials also told Rayment that by writing the story, he "had come very close to damaging national security". Asked how any story that was apparently false could possibly damage national security, the MoD officials changed tack: they admitted the story was correct in maintaining that there had been a meeting of defence chiefs - but, they insisted, an American strike on Iran had not been on the agenda.

It is, of course, no secret that the Bush administration has drawn up plans for a strike on Iran. As Seymour Hersh reports in The New Yorker tomorrow, many of the US officials opposed to a strike believe that its most immediate effect will be to generate an armed insurrection among the Shias in southern Iraq - precisely the region where British soldiers are concentrated. British soldiers are the most visible and easily accessible symbols of the American-led occupation in southern Iraq.

They would be at very serious risk. Iran has also threatened to shut down its oil exports in the event of a strike, which could have a devastating effect on the world's economies....

But if you believe the MoD's press office, British defence chiefs are not talking about any of these things. They have no anxieties about what might happen to British soldiers in Iraq, and are certainly not meeting to discuss what to do in the event that the US drops "bunker-buster" bombs tipped with nuclear warheads on Iran's nuclear facilities.

We leave it to readers to decide which is the more plausible picture of events at the MoD: its press office's account, or ours last week.

[SLCPUNK]

210. This has to be

the most depressing thing I have read in some time. I can only pray that he does not do this.

[Oversea Visitor]

211. So who using nuclear to threaten the world

Iran?????

This such such a sick mentality

[Algorem]

215. Hersh is supposed to be on ABC's Good Morning America today,said

talking-head/hairboy on ABC News Sunday evening.

[babydollhead]

217. kick

[Algorem]

226. YIKES!!!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1825359&page=1

..."It's out of the contingency plan stage. My people on the inside say they went on to operational planning," he told "Good Morning America."

Hersh said that the military had given the White House six plans to choose from, one being the nuclear bunker buster option. Later, he said, some military officials had second thoughts on the idea, but the White House refused to let go of the nuclear option — and that has made some officials nervous...

"This is not really about the worry whether they enriched uranium. This is about this president and the vice president wanting regime change. They want those people out of there," Hersh said. "This president seems to believe it's his mission in life, his mantra. … It's Messianic."..

Hersh said that belief showed that Bush and his administration were living in "La-La Land."


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1825364

[Tight_rope]

218. Bushco are straight up "CRACKHEADS"...It's the only explanation!

These people have got to be on some strong chemical substance. I'm willing to put my life savings on it.

[superconnected]

219. I think it's cocain.

Bush may turn out to be worse than (the original)hitler.

This news report alone is enough for the rest of the world to start preparing to defend itself against us, with nukes.

I don't blame them. The meglomanics in charge want oil prices to be an all time high and the military industrial complex to be our tax funnel for the next several years.

I expect bush WILL nuke iraq, because he wants to create the mother of wars since he's going to be out of office soon. How else could he finshing draining america of its money. His whole junta only moves out of greed.

The question here isn't "would he do it", he will. The question is, "well he step down in '08". This may be part of his plan to "have" to stay in office.

It was incredible naieve of any of us to think he wouldn't pull a major move for defense companies and to up oil prices before he left. With blood already on his hands and the already sell out of America(9/11), what's the difference if he gets more blood on them now. He has no patriotism. He is a parasite here to feed off his host. The US people.

[CGrantt57]

225. It will happen, and, I'll tell you why.

In order to understand this line of "reasoning" on the part of the Bush administration, you have to consider the other player in this game: China.

China is currently one of the largest purchasers of oil from Iran. They are funnelling a lot of money into that country.

Now, consider who holds the notes on the American debt that's been run up since Bush took office. That's right: China, again.

Quite simply, put two and two together.

China owes Iran a lot of money.

The U.S. owes China a lot of money.

Eliminate the Iran government, China owes them nothing, and the U.S. still owes China.

It's going to happen. Not because Bush is the "Savior of Iran," but, because China, who owns our ass, wants it to happen.

Hide and watch. You'll see.

[redqueen]

231. Interesting...

hadn't heard that theory before.

[Tight_rope]

232. Good point!

[Bassic]

227. That's it. If these people don't get booted out soon

we're fucking done for.