8 Comments so far

1. Betsy February 7th, 2007 2:45 pm

   The most rational (using the word lightly) explanation I’ve seen for this campaign is that if The Great Decider can successfully frame an attack on Iran as part of the war in Iraq, he can claim he is proceeding under the existing Congressional authorization.

   If it’s a new independent war (to prevent Iran from getting nukes, for example), he can’t, and could (should) have trouble getting it.

   Cheney has probably figured this out from talking with the Repubs in the Senate. Hence, the sudden reframing from “we’re SO worried about nukes” to “Oh, lookie lookie, they’re fighting us in Iraq.”

   So the merits don’t matter at all. The only question is whether the media and Congress are awake enough to say, “wait a minute, Iran isn’t Iraq no matter how many times you say it is, and we did NOT authorize this.”

2. moonraven February 7th, 2007 5:58 pm

   The media and the congress are too busy shilling for the White House to do anything ethically productive.

3. namvet67 February 7th, 2007 6:44 pm

   If neither the House or the Senate will stop this war then it will conclude naturally. That means eventual defeat of our military, either in Iraq or Iran or both.
   Hoa Binh

4. stefanleacock February 7th, 2007 8:54 pm

   My take on this is that starting a war with Iran has little to do with politics or strategy. Bombing Iran will send the price of oil sky high, enriching the Bushes and all their Big Oil friends, Exxon et al. Putting the whole region into chaos will enrich the Cheneys, Haliburton, Carlyle Group (Bush Sr.),G.E. and all the other war profiteers.

   The old model of covertly putting in a puppet dictator;such as Saddam, The Shah etc. and looting the country that way seems to be passe. Now that those with the most influence in the White House profit from war itself, more than the regime, the plan is, as “the Decider” says “endless war”.

5. Ashot February 8th, 2007 8:56 pm

   So, going to war is all about making the president and his chums rich? What a pathetically weak liberal talking point. Bush may be misguided with regards to specific tactics, but a pre-emptive war on terrorism is what it takes. And there is absolutely no reasonable alternative.

   And this author’s gripe about killing terrorist leaders not meaning anything…that is how the liberal media first judged the success of the war! But when the military began taking some of them out (knowing that the fighting would continue anyway)the liberals cried that it didn’t matter…lose, lose situation with the simple-minded, ignorant minority in this country–which has never supported a war and likely never will.

6. petkov23 February 11th, 2007 12:37 pm

   hey Ashot!

   “war on terrorism” itself is a neocon talking point. For your information even the Brits, supposetly the closest Ally USA has has stopped using the “war on terrorism” talking point. Putin himself has said “war on terrorism” is a lie. Seems only the USA will be talking about its fictitious “war on terrorism”.
   Second, the media is hardly “liberal” when the majority of Tv stations. newspapers etc are owned by 5 count them 5 huge corporations. These corporations are only concerned about one thing: profit. Hardly what I would call left leaning liberal ideas chum. Or are you so ridicilous as to call Murdoc a liberal? Or maybe call CNN liberal? NY times today continues with the Iran lies, again without OFFERING ANY real proof. SO liberal indeed!
   as to the famous “weapons of mass distactions”
   well i am STIL waiting to see any…
   and waiting and waiting…
   send me the info as soon as you can at petok23@yahoo.com
   and also be so kind as to include the info of “Iran’s illigal nu’kear weapons program” too if please. if you cannot the shut the F up

   One last thing: if you believe so much in your “war on terrorism”, why arent you in Iraq defending America and freedom and democracy?

7. bntuzihesoxe December 12th, 2007 10:46 am

   titxorokonaty…

   exkityvivuxa…

8. bnkovutysawe January 1st, 2008 12:29 pm

   titcyhuratyke…

   exwowuhoxica…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)