For all those thinking we are about to attack Iran....

[expatriot]

How do you think this is at all possible militarily or politically for Bush?


Our military is already stretched to the breaking point in the occupation of a country of 21 million and we are going to invade and occupation a nation of 60 million? Our occupation of Iraq is right now contigent on the support, or at least TOLERANCE, of the Shia majority. These Shia feel a close affinity to Iran and so a U.S. invasion of Iran, using Iraq as a staging area, would very much alienate Iraqi Shia and lead to Shia uprisings, further destabilizing Iraq.


Meanwhile, support at home for Bush is down to 41% and support for his handling of Iraq is like 35%... this is VERY troubling to House Republicans and Republicans in general.

I really think that Bush would find it VERY hard to get any kind of Congressional support for anything dealing with an invasion of Iran. And even if he did and he lauched an invasion of Iran, the military situation would be DISASTER. As stupid and insane as we believe Bush to be, I believe that although this administration is EVIL there are many people in the administration with enough sanity to realize that an invasion of Iran would lead to SO many problems unless the entire country mobilized for war to drastically increase military readiness (i.e. a military draft and thusly a utter defeat for Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

Really, there is no way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Yes there is

1.- These guys are NOT thinking in logical ways

2.- Air Campaign... that part of the force is NOT stretched thin

[Occulus]

4. 3. The neocons don't care one whit about any of your objections. n/t

[expatriot]

24. The Neocons are not above reality

and they don't have a grip on all levels and branches of government, you have top military brass who would go to Congress to complain about a completely insane suicidal mission. You already have a fractured Republican delegation in Congress as they get more nervous about 2006.

There are people on this thread who give Bush's clench on power to much credit, in my opinion.

He would not be able to just tell the American people "we are going to invade iran for blah blah blah reasons" and have the American people just follow him blindly this time. There would have to be a spectacular event and even then whether the public would once again rally behind him or blame him for his failures is up in the air.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Many SENIOR military officers have resigned

(or rather been forced out)... JAG is also loosing officers right and left. The Military is quickly becoming a yes Sir aparatus... it started with Chinseki but it has NOT stopped, if anything it has accelerated. I mean the last one to leave is General Rosa (USAF Academy), who has taken a job at the Citadel and is only waiting for ahem official permision to leave military service. In the meanitme peoole like Sanches get a promotion

[Just Me]

48. Same is true with intelligence,...leaving a "yes man" structure,...

,...in place, prepared to do whatever they are told to do.

The destabilization campaign has already started in Iran. PNAC calls for aggressive superior military actions. So, "shock and awe" will take place along with a manipulative propaganda campaign.

The troop level problem is not without solution. Just close bases in the US and overseas and move troops over to the M.E. or strategic bases surrounding the M.E., or utilize the draft.

Politically, as far as this cabal is concerned, war is the means by which the people can be manipulated. Fear and war keeps everyone running around freakin' out.

I honestly can NOT understand those who STILL refuse to believe that the BushCo/neoCON cabal are capable of going forward with their plans no matter what the obstacles.

[leesa]

54. Sure he would. Americans are woefully unconcerned. And aren't we already

bombing Iran? He will simply pull another con job like 9-11 and Americans will wildly wave their flags and ask no questions.

[Toots]

70. He has already said in many ways that this is a global war on terror

and that terrorists will not be safe anyplace on earth. That we will stop terrorists and countries aiding terrorists whenever and however we wish. Osama bin Laden is in Iran and all it is goig to take is some Iranian coming forward and saying that is a fact and giving a detailed descrtiption of where he is. We will demand Iran turn him over and they will deny he is in their country. Cheney will say there is no doubt Bin Laden is there and he is North of Tehran or east or south or west. That is how we will attack Iran.

[darkism]

2. Don't forget that Iran has an actual ARMY too.

And will be able to defend themselves, unlike the last two virtually defenseless nations we picked on.

America the Bully.

[bowens43]

35. Defend themselves against cruise missles and the US Air Force?

I don't think so. Bush will use tactical nukes.

[Maple]

3. No one said invade

Bombing is, however, entirely possible.

As are special ops within Iran.

And the excuse this time is Iranian nukes. The groundwork has been laid for over a year now.

[expatriot]

8. But then Iran would be no hold barred in supporting the insurgency in

Iraq. it would get very messy. I very well-supported and sustained Shia insurgency.

[Maple]

9. Agreed. But did Bush think of consequences

when he invaded Iraq in the first place?

Did it make sense for Hitler...in a defeated bankrupt tiny nation...to attempt to take over the world?

No, but he tried it anyway.

You keep thinking that somehow, someway, this should make sense.

It doesn't...except to Bush and PNAC

[expatriot]

27. well, then... if he goes ahead with it like I said, even a GOP Congress

will impeach him and if they don't then every House seat in the country will be picked up in 2006 just by the Dem candidate saying "I will vote to impeach Bush." Because we would be a talking MASSIVE U.S. casualites and possibly a forced withdrawal (retreat).

[bowens43]

36. No way.

He will not be impeached for attacking Iran. In fact we will see the same kind of rally around the flag and our president bullshit that we saw after the invasion of Iraq. You greatly overestimate the integrity and the intelligence of the GOP and the American people.

What makes you think there would be massive US casualties? There will not be an invasion while there is enough of the Iraqi army left to put up a struggle. What makes you think that massive US casualties would deter this bunch of theo-con thugs?

[expatriot]

53. No we wouldn't

A vast majority of Americans believe we were misled into Iraq, so where is the trust going to come from that he will "lead" us into Iran?

Furthermore, the US does not have the military resoures to invade Iran, I don't care what you say about air power or Iraqi Army divisions. Not only would we need troops to invade Iran, we'd need more troops in Iraq to quell a huge Shia revolt and Iranian support for such a Shia revolt.

[DivinBreuvage]

73. By the time Hitler made his attempt Germany was NOT

the defeated, bankrupt nation of the post-Versailles, Weimar years. But this in no way detracts from your main point that history is full of megalomaniacs who act not from reason or calculation but from some ideological or psychological compulsion. In fact I think it makes at least as much sense to assume that the administration will act from these motives as from rational calculation, and perhaps more so.

[hemp_not_war]

5. all he needs is

another PNAC prescribed 'pearl harbor style event' to rally the populace. He doesn't want to occupy Iran, just bomb them to smitherines, kind of fight them the way Clinton fought.

[BlueIris]

19. There it is. Once again, if you've got it, blog it. Now. Thanks! nt.

[democracyindanger]

6. Your argument relies on a belief

that Chimpy actually thinks he's accountable to Congress and the People.

I know an invasion of Iran is completely insane. But we're talking about the Humanzee here. He misappropriated $700 million from the Afghanistan war to prepare for Iraq, without telling Congress (a Constitutional no-no). He has all the signs of a shitty gambler, which is: When you've got yourself in a hole, keep digging.

[expatriot]

11. Well if you are right he will get impeached by a REPUBLICAN Congress

before the 2006 elections. If we went into Iran and the Iraqi Shia rose up, we could be talking very, very serious U.S. military costs and a possible humiliating, gut wrenching retreat complete with desperate round the clock airlifts out of Baghdad with very, very heavy casualites, entire garrisons being overrrun by human waves, etc. Yeah. even freepers would want him gone and all we'd need was the charge that he didn't cross his t's and dot his i's in any form of congressional approval he did seek.

[alittlelark]

7. They could have 'Nucular' programs ALL OVER the country.

Gotta save the 'Homeland' - that word makes me queasy every time I hear it - Homeland....:scared: :scared: :scared:

[ebayfool]

31. With ya on that one - I wonder just who & how they came up w/that one?

Homeland - gave me a twinge the first time I heard it, still does! If they did a test group to see what word would evoke the kind of unquestioning patriotism they seem to think it should inspire, I'd love to see what type of people responded positively to using 'homeland'. What kind of focus group would respond positively to a word that evokes the 'Hitler_esque' feel that this one does?

Ummm, never mind - I know that's a stupid question! I guess freepers do have their uses, after all. At least for this white house.

[norml]

10. You sound like me before the Iraq invasion. I didn't think they could be

so stupid. I argued that it was just posturing for domestic political advantage. I thought they would beat the war drums without taking that next step. I've learned since then that they are not part of the reality based community, and that they don't mind destroying our military and bankrupting our country for their own gain.

[expatriot]

15. but the difference is the military reality and the political reality.

In the winter of 02-03 Chimpy still had what, 70% approval? we had the military readiness (although I was very alarmed we only went in with 120,000 troops too). But we couldn't even muster 120,000 troops this time to invade Iran unless we cut our occupational strength in Iraq in half and called up every remaining NG and AR unit left and pulled out of South Korea.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Consider this ..........

The Navy and Air Force with rifles and body armor.

And I'd also be looking at an invasion of Syria as a real possibility. Fake to Iran and go to Syria. An easier win for us and 'political capital' for idiot son ...... or so his screwed (il)logic could go.

[Kenneth ken]

12. there is a thread in Editorials

called " The US war with Iran has already begun...By Scott Ritter "
posted by mom cat

whether it will be a disaster, or get congressional approval, or if there are any sane members in the Bush** maladministration is, perhaps, moot.

There is money to be made in war, and the US isn't currently doing a lot of bombing or misslie launching, so war profiteering is not running as robustly as it could. That factor might be all this maladministration needs to justify to themselves increasing hostilities against Iran.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I think that he will engineer some sort of provocation

that will make a war with Iran palatable to the American people. Maybe he'll allow another terrorist attack to take place on American soil, or he will somehow engineer an "attack" on our forces in Iraq. When he needs to, he will stir up the necessary nationalistic fervor, and get the American people to accept the necessity of a draft. His approval ratings will skyrocket again as they always do when we are percieved to be under attack, or when we are in a fresh war that the people are convinced is justified.

That's what the pessimistic cynic in me is predicting.

[expatriot]

25. No... we doesn't have party loyalty or government loyalty to

carry something like that out with out some major leaks and dissent I mean just think how many people would have to be involved in planning and carrying out a major "terrorist" attack against the United States. This is very far-fetched, in my opinion. Another thing, it is not for sure how America would respond to another terrorist attack. Maybe it would be decided that Bush's strategy to fight terror was ineffective. I think a lot of you think that Bush's reach and hold on every process , government, media, etc. is a bit too strong than it is in reality.

[Old and In the Way]

14. How? Read this...........

Going to Tehran
http://www.billmon.org/

scary shit.....

[expatriot]

18. No... the Iraqi army is full of Shia

The officer corps of Saddam's army was Sunni and they kept a firm grip on any Shia sectarianism amid the ranks in the iran-iraq war. now the iraqi army is very, very predominately shia arab. they are not that effective against sunni insurgents who they have a clear motivation to defeat to increase their idea of security... but against Iran... who they think of as their brothers? 10 divisions? even if they are full divisions that is no more than 200,000 troops (probably 100,000-150) of poorly trained Shia recruits with low morale to fight other Shias. How big is Iran's active military? how about their provincial defense militias? Even if these 10 Iraqi divisions fight with us instead of against us, they wouldn't shift the balance in our favor much at all.

[Old and In the Way]

30. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment....but

that doesn't mean this deluded administration won't pursue this. I totally agree that this scheme would be nuts....in fact, it could blowback horribly against our troops. I don't think a draft is politically viable and an airwar will be completely different than the cakewalk against Iraq. (We had the benefit of 10 years when we pretty much took out all their C&C systems). OTOH, I think this is a pipedream that they can field an army with 10 divisions. So far they have failed in this endeavor to establish one credible division. The fact that this is being discussed is quite amazing....I suspect that we'll be hearing a lot more about this in the near future.

[bananas]

16. The US war with Iran has already begun...By Scott Ritter

We didn't have enough troops for Iraq,
that didn't stop Commander Cuckoobananas.

Scott Ritter has a new article out today,
he says we're going to send ground troops in:

"To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that
will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=133176&mesg_id=133176

[expatriot]

21. I've read that... that is what motivated this thread.

So we have bases in Azerbaijan... Northern Iran, along with MUCH of Iran, is very mountainous. Seizing Tehran will not end Iranian resistance. Insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq will explode.

I think this is Scott Ritter's face-saving article to the reality that we are not going to invade Iran in June or in the foreseeable future.

There is no new information in this "article" that he has written.

[Leafy Geneva]

32. Reality, Reality, Reality .......

I think in each of your posts you use the word reality. You are obviously one of those reality-based people.

While we are arguing about whether or not they lied about the last war, they have gone and started the next one. This is why they made no plans for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. They knew that by the end of that war they would already be creating a whole new reality by creating a whole new war.

I believe the attack on Iran has already begun - just as the attack on Iraq had already begun at the time we were arguing about whether or not to "authorize" it.

[bananas]

66. LOL, maybe it's not new to you

LOL, maybe it's not new to you,
I have a hard time keeping up with this stuff.
What's new to me is the ground invasion,
previously all I've heard about was bombing
and covert ops, then the oppressed masses would
rise up and overthrow their masters!

I don't see that he has to save face for anything,
he's just telling us what he's been hearing,
if he hears that plans have changed,
or if he concludes that it's no longer realistic,
he'll come out and say it.

For the record, here's what he said in March.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8431.htm
audio interview 03/31/05
"ready to attack Iran via massive aerial bombardment"
"this doesn't mean we will be bombing in June"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8408.htm
Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran By Scott Ritter 03/30/05
"Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered."

[Jackpine Radical]

20. It's easy.

1) Bomb the crap out of Iran
2) Stage another Reichstag fire--maybe set off a nuke in SF Bay. Nothing to lose but a buncha queers & libberuls out there anyway.
3) Institute a draft ta perteck Murka fm terra
4) Invade from Azerbaijan or wherever.

And don't worry about polls. Diebold & ES&S will handle the vote.
Don't worry about Congress. They will be suspended from operation for the duration for their own protection after a couple of anthrax or smallpox outbreaks.

What have they got to lose? If the Downing Street noose tightens, Bushco will kick over the gallows.

[expatriot]

22. gotcha

:tinfoilhat:

I think it would take a bit more than another terrorist attack for Bush to get away with disbanding Congress and calling up a draft.

[Jackpine Radical]

46. Bush doesn't so much "get away with" things

as he just does whatever the hell he damn well pleases.

[raccoon]

62. and the corporate-owned butthead media never call him on it nt

[thecrow]

23. I see you've had your sunshine pills today

:)
Some scarey shit!
But entirely possible...

[LittleClarkie]

26. We're talking about folks

who keep talking about the rosy picture in Iraq and how the insurgents are on their last legs.

I think that they will probably bug out of Iraq, or pretend to, before they move on to Iran or Syria. We don't hear much about Afghanistan anymore, even though we continue to fight there as well. It's almost as if we think we're done there. Even if we're not.

These are people who thought we could win Iraq on the cheap. I've not seen the greatest judgement out of them so far. So I wouldn't doubt that they're bloody stupid enough to think they can get away with doing it again. They will need another 9/11 though, I reckon.

[expatriot]

28. well then like I said it would be their fall and a decisive one at that

and with that I go to bed.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

34. You make some wrong assumptions.

1. You assume bush needs authorization, he doesn't. But even if he did , he already has it.

From the Iraq war authorization

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Now you and I know that wasn't involved but that's irrelevant, Iraq wasn't involved either.

2. You assume that bush and his henchmen will not use the most devastating weapons at their disposal. An attack against Iran will not necessarily require invasion.

3. You assume that an invasion or attack on Iraq shortly before the 2006 elections would be detrimental to the republicans. I think the opposite is true. The invasion of Iraq shortly before the 2002 elections worked in their favor, so will this.

4. You assume that because the military is stretched thin now , it will continue to be so. Watch for a draft.

5. You assume that the administration wants a stable Iraq. Bad assumption. A stable Iraq would mean a US pull out. That's not what they want. They want permanent bases.

6. You assume taht the bushies care what the American people think.

7. You biggest assumption:
"there are many people in the administration with enough sanity"

[no_hypocrisy]

37. Hey, Hitler's generals told him not to go into Russia, and he didn't

listen to them. We have historical precedence.

[OneTwentyoNine]

38. Not a chance,won't pass Congress,not enough troops....

Ain't going to happen unless Bush can trump up a phony Iranian attack on American soil.

[Ian David]

44. Or gets Iran to attack Iraq or Israel.

1) US or Israeli air strike against the Iranian reactor.

2) Iraqi troops skirmish along Iranian border in an escalating conflict.

3) Terrarists attack.

Don't forget we have already tried to provoke Libya by conducting "Operation Matador" along their border.

[flpoljunkie]

39. According to the Boston Globe, we're training recruits to attack Iran

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/17/facing_factsin_iraq?mode=PF

Washington says it has enough troops in Iraq, but battle commanders on the ground are saying privately they need more men.

A former Pentagon official, journalist, and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb, a man with considerable political and military knowledge, came back from a fact-finding trip in Iraq talking about the ''gap between those who work there, who were really careful of every word they uttered of prediction or analysis, and the expansive, sometimes, I think, totally unrealistic optimism you hear from people back in Washington."

In a report to the council, Gelb was scathing about America efforts to train an Iraqi army. ''If you ask any Iraqi leader, they will tell you these people can't fight. They just aren't trained. And yet we're cranking them out like rabbits." As for plans to train a 10 division Iraqi army by next year, Gelb was scathing. ''It became very apparent to me that these 10 divisions were to fight some future war against Iran. It had nothing to do, nothing to do," with taking Iraq over from the Americans and fighting the insurgents.

Americans have statistics for everything in Iraq, yet little of it reflects reality. ''The information seeps in, and you wonder" about its reliability," Gelb said. " You wonder if you really know what's going on, because essentially what you have are the statistics. It reminds me so of the Vietnam days."

[Ian David]

43. So, we're borrowing a page from The Bay of Pigs playbook?

Just like George I did during the first Gulf War when he allowed Saddam to slaughter thousands who thought they would be backed by American air power?

[faithnotgreed]

50. with iraqis! so this is part of their plan. thank you for the link

it does make sense considering this administration

[Mass_Liberal]

40. agreed

completely. It simply isn't possible, and ppl around here are going crazy with, "aaaaah! We're going to conquer the Middle East and install Israel as our puppet dictator!" Ain't gonna happen, chill people.

[tanyev]

41. Haven't we just learned that the US and UK illegally

started bombing Iraq long before the Congress ever gave any authorization? Dubya don't need no stinkin' authorization.

[Ian David]

42. Their doctrine is after a bombing, there will be a Democratic uprising

Officially, they say that if we bomb the leaders and military, the forces of Democracy will rise-up against the Mullah's and freedom will blossom, without us having to "put any boots on the ground."

And the Iranian people LOVE AMERICA and we will be greeted with cheers and they will throw flowers at our feet.

Un-officially, I think Bush just wants to trigger The War of the Apocalypse, so that Jesus will come back.

[faithnotgreed]

51. heres what i think - Jesus wants no part of any bush "plans"

but the rest of your post is right on incl his cabals unending lust for domination that previously we have only seen in old cartoons and science fiction movies

[Ian David]

57. Doesn't matter if Jesus wants it. Bush THINKS Jesus wants it...

and Bush acts accordingly.

And Jesus or no Jesus, his actions will still lead to disaster.

[faithnotgreed]

71. i dont agree that bush has any thought whatsoever about what Jesus

wants or not

religion is a long used tool of those who want ONLY to dominate
and bush and co are using religion to get what they want but it has no connection whatsoever to Jesus except in the mind of those who want to believe it is so

they started some years ago to study at the feet of goebbels and its working out according to plan
but i personally do not believe that he believes what he is saying
its the means to an end and that is all
the rest is just public display for public consumption and obedience

[Ian David]

75. I think Bush believes he is the anti-christ

The rest is just cover.

[DemBones DemBones]

63. Bush* doesn't really long for the Second Coming,

IMO, but even if he does, be assured that Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., have other motives.

It's not about the prophets, but all about profits.

[faithnotgreed]

72. you got that right. see my above post. its all a con game for the public

[allemand]

45. Most of Iran's oil is in one relatively small province (Khuzestan).

There is already ethnic unrest in that province which has a considerable Arab minority among its population of 3.7 million people.

Iran rocked by series of blasts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4084908.stm

Wikipedia has an interesting demographic map of Iran:

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_peoples.jpg, there is also a high resolution version)

An invasion of that province would deprive the Iranian government of most of its revenue.

The nuclear reactor is located in neighboring Bushehr province (population of 744,000 people, many of them Sunni Arabs).

Hormozgan province (population of 1.1 million) which is of great strategic importance (Strait of Hormuz) has many tribes.


So the Bush administration might be tempted to play the old "divide et impera" game in those provinces and simply bomb the rest.
And I really doubt that there is any sanity left in this administration.

[htuttle]

47. Since when did logic and reality enter into the Administration's plans?

There is NO idea too stupid for the Bush administration.

[Sparkly]

49. I've been wondering whether we're already in Syria.

And some time ago, Cheney made noises about the possibility of Israel striking Iran. I wonder whether they'd like to have the region escalate in a way that other countries (Europe) feel compelled to get involved.

As General Clark has said, they sure don't seem interested in making the battlefield smaller, but instead they're moving toward enlarging it.

[Norquist Nemesis]

52. "Operation Spear"

I told my husband last week that even the name of the operation puts me on edge. He understoon...close the the border with a spear pointed directly at Syria. Just one or two 'oops' on bomb coordinates, and there you go!

I'm beginning to think Iran is a distraction to actions against Syria. Besides, if they DO have nuke capability, they're safe...just look at North Korea.

[Sparkly]

56. I agree.

I keep saying Syria is this war's Cambodia. It's hard to believe that if there's an enclave of foreign fighters there, that we're playing cat and mouse and leaving them alone whenever they go beyond the border. And it's not hard to believe that the government would lie about it.

[warrens]

55. You don't understand

The only way Smirk can get off is masturbating to dead bodies. And he needs more and more of them to get the effect. At first, just executing a couple of people every month did the trick. Then a few dozen a month in Afghanistan was necessary. Pretty soon, that wasn't working, and he had to move up to thousands at a time. Now, like his twin Bundy, he has to escalate the killing, even if it will destroy him. At the end, Bundy was just killing at random and in quantity. Smirk knows that he will be remembered as the worst president in history, no matter what he does. So he figures, what the fuck?

[deutsey]

58. You're obviously a member of one of those reality-based communities

Bush and his supporters don't allow reality to interfere with their dreams of world domination.

[Ishoutandscream2]

59. Hey, Scott Ritter hasn't been wrong yet

If I were a betting man, my money would be on an invasion this summer. A lot of stories coming out of Iran, especially the displeasure the Bushes have expressed over the current elections. It's all being set up. You are right, it is totally illogical with our stretched out and thinning ranks of troops, but this group of war criminals doesn't think logically.

Bet on Scott Ritter.

[Texas_Kat]

60. There's always the Air Force ...

Apparently it doesn't take ground troops to bomb Iran..... It's likely that Bush would see that as (initially) the way to start a war.

[Ian David]

61. So now I called The Navy, The Marines and Air Force

For Young Marines, all I got was voicemail.

The Navy gave me the number for their Public Affairs office:
Sgt. Campbell
301-567-4248

I left him a message. His out-going message says that if it is an emergency, you can call him on his cell phone. I won't post his cell phone number here, but if you want it, just call his voicemail.

I left a message for The Air Force Recruitment Public Affairs at 301-567-4248 in the voicemail box of Sgt. Campbell. He's covering for the Commander who will be out until June 27th.

At the US Marine Corps I called Master Sgt. Edwards
703-784-9454
Left voicemail.

[Doctor_J]

64. I tnink he'd do anything to get Iraq off the front burner

Don't forget he gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban in order to stage his "liberation" of Iraq. He'll gladly abandon Iraq if Iran would boost his poll numbers a few points. Human life means nothing to him - "approval" and image are everything.

[NuttyFluffers]

65. reality never stopped them going ahead with delusions before...

what makes you think this is any different? they'd shoot grandma from a cannon to attempt their delusions to become reality.

you and i are part of the "fact based community." in neo-con speak, that's somehow a bad thing. it's gonna happen, if not already happening. attacking iran is now a given, as it has been projected already.

whether we fall flat on our face or succeed is already a given. we are going to fail. and then they are going to blame the left for "lack of enthusiasm" for their shitty, fucked in the head plans. and then they'll try to attack sane and rational people some more and then do another fucked in the head thing. lather, rinse, repeat. what part of this merry-go-round have you not seen already?

[Beetwasher]

67. NeoCon's Are One Major Terror Attack Away From NUKING IRAN

Who says the will invade? They are just itching to nuke someone. There is nothing they would love to do more.

[Zen Democrat]

68. Bush isn't going to INVADE Iran ... just bomb the crap out of them.

He has to have some kind of diversion to Iraq -- and since nothing can slow down his war plans to march through the Middle East, Asia and South America -- it's on with the show. There's no telling just where Bush is having bombs dropped these days.

[Lone_Wolf]

69. I think the Neocons are getting impatient...

They know that the American public is growing weary of their assinine war . Because of this, they realize that the window of opportunity to control the Middle East might be closing soon.

They'll manufacture some reason to go into Iran like Bin Laden is there to drum up support for this war.

[oxbow]

74. "We" don't have to. Israel can do it for us.

there have been several reports posted here on their game plan

[sunnystarr]

76. Hasn't our congress already given * blanket authority to go to war

as part of the "War on Terror"?? With Iraq in chaos and plummeting polls, *'s next step will be to detract from the bad news and get us into another war - this time with Iran. Freedom is on the march and we will get fed more lies to untangle at a later time. This will make '06 another wartime year with calls to stay the course and to re-elect repukes who will be touted as the only ones who support our troops. Syria will be next in '08 to cement the neocon candidate. That's the plan and we have to get the truth out quickly far and wide.