Skip to main content

[Update: Matt O caught the story first, here.] [Update 2: The Hersh story wasn't posted when I wrote this, but for those who haven't seen it, it's up now.] Yesterday, I suggested that  a bombing campaign against Iran would satisfy the Bush administration need for vindication of their foreign policy delusions without requiring another messy ground war and occupation. Today, 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.

The New Yorker story, written by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, says  the administration think "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government."

AFP paraphrases Hersh as saying that "Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler."

Hersh's story adds to fears expressed by centrist foreign policy analyst Joseph Cirincione, which I commented on here, and others who believe the Bush administration are perfectly capable of attempting to top the enormous strategic blunder they committed in Iraq by attacking Iran. But Hersh's story will go beyond chatter to detail actual policy and planning machinations within the White House and Pentagon.

The story also adds significance to news of Pentagon plans to detonate a  .6 kiloton bomb in a test, codenamed "Divine Strake," to be carried out in the Nevada desert. The Pentagon says the test is aimed at exploring the effectiveness of non-nuclear bunker-busters, but taken in tandem with the revelations from Hersh, the size of the bomb — 700 tons, many times the capacity of even our largest cargo planes to deliver — suggests instead that the military are using it to circumvent the ban on nuclear testing. (We talked about Divine Strake in conjunction with British attempts to foment anti-Iranian sentiment in the UK, here.)

The details of Hersh's story as described by AFP ring true; for one, Saddam was often compared to Hitler in the runup to the Iraq invasion. The comparison was obscene and overblown then and even more so now: Iran's Ahmadinejad has nowhere near the absolute authority enjoyed by Hitler and Saddam, and unlike Nazi Germany and Iraq, Iran has no history of military aggression against its neighbors and, absent a threat from the US, no compelling reason to adopt a militant posture now.

Objections from skeptics regarding the possibility of a US attack on Iran generally arise from one or both of two mistaken assumptions: first, that an attack on Iran is precluded because it would involve heavy use of US ground forces, which simply aren't available; and second, that the Bush administration have learned humbling lessons from the invasion of Iraq. But as I have repeatedly said, it wouldn't and they haven't. It appears, rather, that at least some of them have sunk so far into delusion that they seriously believe a massive bombing attack on Iran would, as I jokingly suggested yesterday, cause the Iranian public to rise up and embrace the US.

One of the major disappointments arising from the marketing of the war on Iraq is that not a single one of the senior administration, intelligence or military officials who knew full well that the invasion was likely to result in disaster had the courage to stand up, resign and go public with their concerns. I don't know if that would have stopped the war, but it would at least have put a speed bump in the path of the administration's marketing effort and the wholesale embrace of it by the press.

Now, astonishing as it seems, the administration are seriously considering an even more dangerous blunder with even more serious consequences. If ever there were a time for government and military officials to put country above career, and if ever there were a time for the institutional press to do their goddamned jobs, this is it. I don't know if there is in fact any way short of what would amount to a counter-coup to prevent a president who considers himself the supreme authority on national security from going to war, but at some point we'll no longer have the opportunity to find out.

On a sociological note, it may be worth pointing out that Ahmadinejad is considerably more popular in Iran than Bush is in the US, yet the odds that an attack on the US aimed at provoking the overthrow of Bush would in fact lead to that outcome are nil.

=========
Cross-posted at BTC News

Originally posted to weldon berger on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:46 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Totally Different Situations (82+ / 0-)
    it may be worth pointing out that Ahmadinejad is considerably more popular in Iran than Bush is in the US, yet the odds that an attack on the US aimed at provoking the overthrow of Bush would in fact lead to that outcome are nil.

    You can't even compare Ahmadinejad to Bush.

    For one, Ahmadinejad is a right-wing religious zealot in a country where only his base supports him and a good deal of his constituents are starkly opposed to his policy ... wait a sec ...

    I'm still certain that what motivates me
    Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

    by stinerman on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:19:18 AM PDT

  •  yawn,yawn,world gone mad (8+ / 0-)

    we have heard it all and discussed it all and nothing is being done about it.Feingolds effort just chatty banter .We're agog that Harry had the courage to even mention our concern to dear leader.So much talk,so little action.Just waiting now to see the results of what we've accomplished by all this informed chat .

  •  I AM GLAD, that others are now talking about it, (9+ / 0-)

    I have been writing about this for many months. I have had comments ranging from, You are crazy, too Great diary. Only time will tell, but the indicators are all there. Joe Biden last night on Bill Maher, said that this administration is moving troops out of Iraq little by little, but it’s not because we are making progress.

    It is because we are losing ground, and most are in fear of a regional war. Countries like Turkey, and IRAN, biding their time waiting to make a move.

    So my personal feeling is you can look for a move against Iran soon. If you believe that there will be a move against Iran, then like the diarist has pointed to, the assholes in the administration feel that they can pull off a small scale nuclear attack.

    Be afraid, be very afraid

    I don't hate my counry, just what they did to it.

    by ABA on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:11:12 AM PDT

  •  Can we *please* combine these into one diary? (5+ / 0-)

    And can we please have some sensitivity with the sensationalist "NUKE IRAN!" titles?

    My good friend's entire family lives there.

    Try to keep that in mind when you're being dramatic.  There are people who will be killed if this happens.


    fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

    by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:16:47 AM PDT

    •  Matt quotes AFP's headline. (29+ / 0-)

      And my subject line reflects what I think is happening. I have no desire to unnecessarily alarm anyone, but obviously my sense is that everyone should be alarmed, and precisely because people will be killed.

    •  That's all the more reason not to pull punches (26+ / 0-)

      If the administration is actually planning to use tactical nuclear weapons in Iran, do you suppose that people on this board not using the word "nuke" will make things better for them?  If we actually USE tactical nuclear weapons in Iran, a lot of innocent people are going to die, and they won't be any less dead if we avoided using words like "nuke" or "nuclear" before the fact.  And it further seems to me that anything that gets the word out about just what insanity this administration might be planning -- including the use of the word "nuke" -- increases the chances of your friend's family staying alive.

    •  You are right (13+ / 0-)

      People are going to die in horrendous ways if he bombs Iran. And your Iranian friends better understand that when Bush says "regime change" he means bomb their families in Iran. He could care less who dies. Your friends do care and they need to get involved in the discussion now. Bush has no concept of diplomacy but he does understand bombs and likes to use them a lot. If "nuke Iran" gets their attention finally, the use of the term is not in vain.

      The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

      by Overseas on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:34:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The New Yorker does not say (0+ / 0-)

      that Bush plans to nuke Iran.  In military terms, there's a big difference between drawing up plans and the actual "planning" that's connected to intending to do it.  It's like planning a party you may never plan to give.

      Nothing in that says, of course, that Bush is not planning to attack.

      •  this is meant to second pp's last comment. (0+ / 0-)
        •  concern about Iran retaliation 'a huge issue' (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee

          inside U.S. intelligence according to the Post's April 2 story, "Experts: Iran May Retaliate With Terror If Nuclear Sites Attacked."

          the lead:

          As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

          Further down, the Post has one senior U.S. official saying concern about potential retaliation by Iran is "consuming a lot of time throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus."

          "It's a huge issue," adds another senior official.

          Would senior officials be talking this way about standard war-games-scenario planning? No, I don't think so. Is this story just more propaganda to pressure the Iranians into backing down due to fear of U.S. attack? Maybe so.

          •  I didn't say anything about standard (0+ / 0-)

            war gaming, though perhaps my example led people to think I was.  I take Hersh to be saying that nuking is a live alternative that we're now putting in place enough that we can do if Bush or whoever wants to.  That is VERY different from saying that we are actually going to nuke.  

            It is still very, very scary, but if we start to say that Bush is going to nuke Iran, we are in danger of participating in a final escalation that leads to terrorist attacks.

            Mind you, perhaps they believe in preventive terrorism, as Bush believes in preventive wars.

            •  I don't think you could've read Hersh's (0+ / 0-)

              actual piece, and gotten the impression he was merely reporting on "putting something into place." There's too much in the piece to quote here, so I won't, but please do read it.

              I don't think you actually mean to say that we should all (the public and the various "senior officials" talking off the record due to their own fears) just be quiet and leave the matter to our Dear Leader to make his own decision, without pesky interference, but that's kind of the way your comment reads.

              •  that, of course, depends on what (0+ / 0-)

                you mean by "putting something in place."  I could say that what went on right before the D-day invasion, for example, amounted to putting everything in place, with the exception of the command to go ahead.  Presumably you think it means something less.

                I certainly did not say that we should be quiet.  I said we should not say that Bush is going to nuke Iraq as though it was a done deal.  It just isn't a done deal and if you read the article carefully, you'll see that.

                •  of course it's not a done deal (0+ / 0-)

                  where did I say that? or this diarist? or Hersh? who in fact writes:

                  The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he [a senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror] said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

                  •  Well, you've been commenting on (0+ / 0-)

                    my comments, and my concern is whether we should be saying "Bush is going to nuke Iraq."  If you say that, then what you say means he is really going to do it.  

                    As I put it upthread, "  I take Hersh to be saying that nuking is a live alternative that we're now putting in place enough that we can do if Bush or whoever wants to.  That is VERY different from saying that we are actually going to nuke."

                    I think your response to that was that I couldn't have read the article (which was wrong, in fact).

          •  Even worse then that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee

            Iran could and would immediately respond with a large, conventional and possibly non-conventional counterattack.  Iran has one of the largest armed forces in the world with close to one million in uniform. They have an air force and navy. The entire Straits of Hormudz is bristling with ballistic missiles some of which may be able to evade US radar. They have Satellites and allies (Russians and Chinese) who might provide them with strategic intelligence. It is possible that they also have radar systems which can detect stealth aircraft. Along with that they absolutely have chemical weapons. They used them against Iraq during the Iran Iraq War. If we strike Iran prepare for very heavy casualties. Imagine how the loss of an American Aircraft Carrier, it's planes and crew would play in Peoria. Iran's conventional forces include...

              • 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves.  
              • 1,613 main battle tanks
              • 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles
              • 3,200 artillery weapons
              • 306 combat aircraft
              • 60 attack helicopters
              • 3 submarines
              • 59 surface combatants
              • 10 amphibious ships

            "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

            by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 01:54:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Iran no pushover, US losses key to escalation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bouwerie Boy

                 As I said in my comment in the other diary up now about this topic.We have a lot of people and they are sitting ducks on three sides of Iran. Ships, troops, sailors, allies.
                     In this op-ed: "We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program" in the NYT, the Iranian Ambassador says they don't have nuclear weapons and they have asked for negotiations, and that Iran never used any chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war.

              "Although chemical weapons have been used on us, we have never used them in retaliation — as United Nations reports have made clear."

              Weasel words or truth, I don't know..
                     Idiot boy Michael Ledeen has this article:  "Iran Is at War with Us - Someone Should Tell the U.S. Government."  saying that Iran was caught by Iraqi troops trying to bring POISEN GAS into Iraq, It's precisely this disinformation plant that needs to get outed and squashed by the blogosphere so as to minimize the right wing spin machine power of it. The story is probably false.The spin machine is being setup by Ledeen, Jerome Corsi ("Swiftboat Veterans.."author), and Liz Cheney at State Dept. Then Fox quotes them, or some talking head, and it becomes" truth". But...If we here out this crap, maybe the left wing MSM (Olberman, AAR, Democracy Now,  Jones Network, TDS, Colbert Report...) will pick it up and bingo, we can have us a left wing spin machine!
                    As to your other points about Iran's military, you're right, they have a capable military, and many of their newer weapons systems, such as the new Russian Anti Aircraft systems are designed specifically for US air power: F-15 and cruise missiles. As to the capability to detect stealth aircraft, I haven't seen that claim. Of course the Russians may not have advertised that way.....
                 Their new anti-ship cruise missiles, supplied by China and/or Russia may well be able to penetrate our countermeasures, as that's what they were designed for.
              "Well, do ya feel lucky, punk?"

              Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

              by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:01:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I have to think Hersh wouldn't bother writing (12+ / 0-)

        an investigative piece about a standard war-gaming exercise. Whether or not a decision's been made,  it's clear the option is under serious discussion. I understand your concerns and I don't mean to minimize them, but Hersh's story is just one more item, albeit larger than most, in a rapidly growing pile of evidentiary bits.

        •  I don't think I said anything about standard war- (0+ / 0-)

          gaming.  At least I didn't mean to, but perhaps my example led you to think this.  

          We need to distinguish between

          a.  Standard war-gaming.

          b.  Planning so that we have something pretty fully in place if we need it.

          c.  Actually adoping the plan in b (as in, "of the alternatives we prepared, that's the one we're planning to go for").

          I think Hersch thinks b is going on.  That's not surprising, but it is very alarming.  But it isn't c.

      •  Oh please. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        letsfight, zinger99

        Haven't you learned anything?

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

        by nehark on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:12:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  O please. (0+ / 0-)

          What have you learned?  You really think we can now say we will nuke Iran??  

          If you look at what I said in context, I'm explicitly responding to a concern about talking about our nuking Iran.

          •  I guess what I'm trying to say... (0+ / 0-)

            ...is that Bush does plan to nuke Iran. It will be up to other, more mature heads in his Administration to prevent him from following through. That's what I've learned. We should never underestimate the will of George W. Bush to commit destructive acts in the world. He, and a few close to him, are insane. That's all. Didn't mean to come off with such a rude tone.

            (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

            by nehark on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:00:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We are really on the same page. I wanted (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nehark

              to insist that what the NYorker article said was more limited.  You wanted to draw our attention to probabilities/likelihood (or something like that).

              We could all despair.  We have a very small window of opportunity to change the course, I'm feeling right now.  God knows how we'll do it.

    •  Better idea would be to elevate one of them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TXsharon, applegal

      to the FP

    •  "Not sensationalism; it's the plan (8+ / 0-)
      And can we please have some sensitivity with the sensationalist "NUKE IRAN!" titles?
      [. . . .]
      Try to keep that in mind when you're being dramatic.

      It's not the diary writers or Sy Hersh who are being sensationalistic. From Hersh's article::

      The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel's report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability "for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons." Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

      Accountability moment, my ass!

      by orthogonal on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:03:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Iraq has become a grind. Iran offers hope (21+ / 0-)

    that Bush can spike his poll numbers AND advance the PNAC agenda.  

    The problem with Iraq is that we're losing there.  No one likes a loser.

    Iran is a fresh opportunity to showcase our latest military technology, and to give patriotic americans the euphoric rush of a massive bombing campaign.

    This administration does not plan ahead very well.  Any whispers of possible negative fallout will be quashed.  

    Once we bomb the hell out of Iran and turn the world completely against us, people will forget all about Iraq.

    Be afraid?  I AM afraid.

    •  the trouble is... (7+ / 0-)

      I suggest that most Americans are just plain worn out with this war carap and they just don't give a flying fuck anymore.  Most people just want this shit to go away and stop bothering them (god, I know I do!).  

      So at some point Bush, the ultimate ass-monkey, will just go too far... perhaps he already has.  

      Even your best friend will start to get on your nerves if he keeps asking for favors and borrowing money... I know mine did.  

      My prediction is that people are getting tired and really fed up and at some point... real soon... they will do amost anything short of lynching them in the street (maybe even that too) to make these people shut up and stop bothering them.

    •  Did anyone note what Karen Kwiatkowski said (9+ / 0-)

      during her April 2 2009  Q&A interview by Brian Lamb on C-Span last week regarding Iran and the OSP, Office of Special Plans, part of whose job was to cook up phony intel to lay the foundation for attacking Iraq) at the Pentagon in 2002-2003?

      LAMB: Who was Bill Loody [Luti]?

      KWIATKOSKI: Bill Loody [Luti] was the director of Near East-South Asian policy. He formerly worked for Dick Cheney. He was an aide to Dick Cheney when Cheney was the Secretary of Defense. He came over into the Pentagon from Dick Cheney’s staff. So, he is a political appointee. I consider him to be ideologically a neo-conservatism but, regardless, very much on board with the ”Take Down Iraq” team on that aspect, very much pushing that. But, he was our boss. He was the boss of all of us. And in our staff meetings, of course, the Office of Special Plans folks, after they’re formed, come down to our staff meetings, and they - I consider them our sister office, and that’s how I describe them. I was not assigned into that office. I knew a lot of those guys because they shared space with us in the summer of 2002 and, of course, we saw them at our staff meetings and that kind of thing.

      Now, I have to say this. Interestingly enough, I never thought of it at the time, but, two weeks after - ey two to three weeks after the Office of Special Plans was set up as the expanded Iraq desk, they moved the Iran desk up into it, and that of course was headed by Larry Franklin, now serving a dozen years for apparently - I’m not sure what he did. He gave some classified material to members of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. He’s - he plea-bargained down to 12 years, so I don’t know the extent of what he did.

      LAMB: Did you know him?

      KWIATKOSKI: Yes, I knew him. He was in - I liked him. I liked Larry Franklin. He was a wild and crazy guy. He was the Iran desk, though, and he moved up into OSP, as well. So, OSP clearly was not simply focused on Iraq even in the fall of 2002.

      LAMB: OSP, Office of Special Plans?

      KWIATKOSKI: Yes.

      So. Even Back in 2002, the civilian neoconservative  controllers of the Pentagon were handling Iraq and Iran as a package deal out of the same office, evidently.

      Read, or better yet, watch the whole Kwiatkowski interview. There much more amazing stuff in it.

      •  Oops! My comment below was to (0+ / 0-)

        Ovals 49 at 4:24 above. When I see peeder I'll have rip one of those merit badges I pinned on him..haha.
        Thanks for the heads up about Karen K with Brian Lamb. That's probably on the Cspan website..googling...Scott Horton posted a coupla places, thanks Scott...
           Here's a podcast  although the page says "later"
           Here's the page  and you can get the transcript and watch the video there. Cool!

        Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

        by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:46:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah you right (0+ / 0-)

      And the way the propaganda ground is being laid, it's Iran's FAULT we are 'losing'/having problems..for whatever is going on in Iraq.
         They must provoke Iran into an incident>retaliation>escalation cycle to do this, as although the US is going through the motions of acting diplomatic, they aren't, it's all cover for an "Iran Made us do it" moment when we are'forced' to act.
         Why are they trying the coalition/UN cover? Russia for one has a lot invested in Iran. Iran has been buying lots of weapons and technology transfer, and Russia has been trying to offer diplomatic solutions.
         The President and his base need an incident>retaliation>escalation cycle to retain their position against an incresasing call at home to step down....wait, who was I talking about there?
         And remember, it's all Iran's fault.

      Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

      by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:23:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is how WW3 starts (18+ / 0-)

    Blogging won't stop it.  Feet in the street time.

    W - all boots & hat, no cattle .75, -7.54

    by Mosquito Pilot on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:35:43 AM PDT

    •  But... (12+ / 0-)

      ...blogging will be a major reason those feet get to the street.  It's a progression: First we get their attention, then we get their hearts, then we we get their feet, and finally we get what we want from the government.

      •  Feet in the street (5+ / 0-)

        probably won't stop it either.  Don't kid yourselves.  And an important minority of the feet that end up in the street will be agents provocateurs, from local and state police as well as some federal agencies, who will use tried and true methods to goad crowds into what is or can be portrayed as violent actions.  And the government and media will use their well-honed tricks of turning the average person at home, who may suspect that something is wrong with America but who mostly just wants to be left alone, against the violent protesters.  And the protesters, the most radical and unappealing examples of whom will be highlighted in media stories, will be used as a rationale for further repression, well beyond the Patriot Act.  And it won't change national policy unless the public is already so anti-Bush that they will not accept all of the above lies.  And we're not to that point yet.

        So what I'm saying is:

        1. Don't give me any bullshit about how blogging is ineffectual and if we just went out and marched everything would be OK, because our opponents have thought of that and are at least eight moves ahead of you.
        1. If you go out marching, you can be passionate, you can/should be funny, you should be respectful, but don't be violent and take the responsibility to keep everyone around you from being violent.
        1. Don't be unrealistic about the effects of public protest.  I could much more readily foresee Bush declaring martial law (and getting Congress to suspend habeas corpus in the face of "insurrection") than I could see American street protesters driving him from office.  As with Nixon, if he's driven from office it's going to be because the broad swath of the country has utterly lost faith with him, and while protests like Cindy Sheehan's have often been a great way to start the kindling of public awareness I've seen no evidence that in the U.S. they have been able to fuel a raging fire.

        We're in for a long slog, and among our weapons is a strong blog.

        My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

        by Major Danby on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:03:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Feet in the Street are Necessary... (14+ / 1-)

      ...but not sufficient.

      Record numbers of feet were in the street in early 2003, and the Bush administration simply ignored them.

      And lately, this site has often led the way in denouncing anti-war protestors for making the "left" (heavy quotation marks there) look bad.  Who wants to be connected to "hippies"? And don't, please, complain about ANSWER.  I can't stand ANSWER.  They're undemocratic and ruthlessly sectarian.  But they aren't the entire anti-war movement. And bringing them up to discredit the anti-war movement is kind of like denouncing the civil rights movement because some Stalinists were once involved in it.

      We do need feet in the street, but they need to be part of a broad strategy of nonviolent resistance and direct action.  And I suspect that these things won't work if the crucial center of American anti-war sentiment (what the blogosphere likes to call the "left") continues to feel that it's more important to say "we're not hippies" than to provide support for the direct action, even if they choose not to take part in it.

      Practically, what would this entail?

      Well it starts with little things:

      • Military counter-recruitment efforts in schools, colleges, and recruitment centers.

      Creative demonstrations (think about how much more impact Cindy Sheehan had in Crawford than most of the recent marches in NYC or DC have had).

      • Not casting our votes or spending our political money on politicians who fundamentally support the war (if the Iraq War Resolution didn't teach you that the vote for majority leader is NOT the only vote that counts, nothing will).  

      • Educating the public about alternatives to war.  And here the internet is important.  It's easy to write a diary denouncing the Bush administration (and I do mean that...they make it very easy).  It's harder to stick your neck out and write a diary that tries to conceptualize a nonviolent foreign policy.

      And, if need be, such a campaign of nonviolent action could build to bigger things. They just had a general strike in France.  Once upon a time, we used to have general strikes in the U.S.  Ultimately, the people really do have the power. But, on occasion, we have to be willing to seize it.

      First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

      by GreenSooner on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:28:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Problem is... Bush only has 2 years left (3+ / 0-)

        so if they are going to attack Iran, it's going to be sooner rather than later.

        Your suggestions are a good long term strategy, but in the meantime... the most realistic hope to stop this madness would be to take back Congress in November and immediately move to impeach.

        Hey, that wasn't very...

        by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:33:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, Let's Be Practical (4+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          CJB, metal prophet, Bouwerie Boy, KenBee
          Hidden by:
          DemocraticLuntz

          Impeachment is a fine idea.  I've been in favor of it for years. But it won't stop Bush.  Whatever happens in November, there's simply no way that the Senate will muster the necessary 2/3 majority to convict.

          And "taking back" Congress for the Bidens and the Clintons won't stop the drive for war.  Both of these two (and other) Democratic hawks are positioning the party -- and themselves -- for 2008 and beyond. And they firmly believe that an aggressive military posture is necessary to provide "credibility" to the Democrats.  A Democratic Senate provided overwhelming authorization for the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and the Iraq War in 2002.  And I have no reason whatsoever to think that a Democratic Senate wouldn't provide authorization for a war on Iran in 2006 or 2007.

          Electing Democrats will make some difference.  It will not, however, stop the war in Iraq or protect us from its sequels.  

          First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

          by GreenSooner on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:40:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I meant if they nuke Iran... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bouwerie Boy

            especially without the consent of Congress.

            Then yes, there might be enough votes.  Heck, even then... it's still a might.

            That's how far over the shark we have jumped!

            Hey, that wasn't very...

            by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:42:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I dare you to name (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Canadian Reader, KenBee

            67 current U.S. Senators who would vote to remove Bush from office even if he ate a baby on live TV.

            I'll even give you a head start:  Feingold, Boxer, Kerry, Levin, Durbin.  You come up with the other 62.

            If you can't, then maybe we don't have a tactical disagreement yet, since we both want to get the Dems to have subpoena power and more seats in both houses of Congress so that impeachment and removal might become possibilities in 2007.

            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

            by Major Danby on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:06:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pro Life (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shotput8

              means that we support live babies, and their right to be eaten by the President on national television.

              Plus, the only babies the President eats are terrorist babies. So this baby was obviously a terrorist.

              And he was probably a member of MoveOn.org too.

              congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

              by bartman on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:39:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Convicting the Prez in the Senate is Impossible (0+ / 0-)

              And it doesn't matter what the outcome is this fall.  Every GOPer will vote to acquit, as will many Democrats.

              So what's our disagreement about impeachment?

              First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

              by GreenSooner on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:35:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ...as for electing Dems to the Senate... (0+ / 0-)

                Lesser evils are definitely lesser.  

                Given the lay of the land, I think electing progressive Democrats in the fall makes some tactical sense.  

                Going to the mat for the Democratic Party, however, makes no sense as a strategy, assuming that is one prioritizes things like getting out of Iraq and preventing war on Iran (which is what this thread is about).  And electing pro-war Democrats will only make the problem worse by reenforcing the bipartisan consensus in favor of such adventures.

                First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

                by GreenSooner on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:40:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  On your analysis (0+ / 0-)

                Impeachment is the same as censure, since neither will remove Bush from office.

                My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

                by Major Danby on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:58:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Also right now (4+ / 0-)

          We can call and write our congress critters let them know we oppose it, write letters to local media, call into radio talk shows--write the media and ask they report on this, do whatever we can to shake up things right now!

          We can do this! We've done it before, people working together to shake things up!

          And blogging is like holding a meeting or meeting with others in our communities to discuss issues, this is the new community.

        •  Iran will be attacked before the elections n/t (0+ / 0-)

          W - all boots & hat, no cattle .75, -7.54

          by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:48:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  nonviolent action... (6+ / 0-)

        i think you're right - we need to be preparing ourselves.

        i'm reading gene sharp's opus "waging nonviolent struggle" in preparation - because strategy matters and sharp is a GREAT strategic thinker.

      •  effective non-violent direct action? (4+ / 0-)

        Bush and his inner circle seem arrogant and self-enclosed enough to be serious.  The excellent Hersh article quotes insiders who report this is not just a bluff.  Rove will like the idea that a bombing run would, he thinks, help republican candidates in November.

        So a massive direct action campaign to prevent Bush from causing the next international disaster would have to start now.  

        The  Feet in the Street  comment above is well thought out.  Where is this discussion taking place?  Where is this action developing?

        •  Yes...the time has to be now (6+ / 1-)

          In the fall of 2004, too much of the anti-war movement was caught up in a self-defeating ABB mindset that led to an enormous amount of self-censorship, in the vain hope that if opponents of the war just kept quiet enough, it would help defeat Bush.

          As things go from bad to worse in Iraq and war on Iran looms, those of us who see the Democratic Party as part of the answer and those of us who see it as part of the problem need to swallow our differences and work together to make war domestically impossible to wage, regardless of who wins in November.

          First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

          by GreenSooner on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:38:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seems as though we have a ratings stalker (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GreenSooner

            in our midst.  Have a 4 to counter their persistent poking.

            (-6.75, -6.24) George W. Bush deserves a fair trial.

            by CJB on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:42:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CJB

              I actually blame this situation on the demise of the old "2" rating, which was a way for those who lacked the intestinal fortitude to engage in a discussion with someone with whom they disagreed to express that disagreement in a way that didn't threaten to shut up the disagree-ee.

              First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

              by GreenSooner on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:40:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  if you hadn't been blogging (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      realalaskan, Yellow Canary

      we'd have never heard your call for "Feet in the street time."

      okay?   okay.


      Meet the New Pharisees, same as the Old Pharisees.

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:39:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  See also this great piece by Phyllis Bennis (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, means are the ends
      Hidden by:
      DemocraticLuntz

      ....on the challenges facing the anti-war movement today.  It's only a few days old.  You'll find it here.  

      Her basic argument is that the anti-war movement has achieved its first goal: a clear majority of the American public is now convinced that the war in Iraq is a bad idea.  The challenge is now converting these convictions into action.  

      Here are her concluding three paragraphs (it's a much longer piece and well worth reading in its entirety):  

      Our task is to figure out how to mainstream and realize our demand - Bring ALL the troops home NOW - to get to the next step beyond generalized anti-war sentiment. And we have to figure out ways of insuring that people - that vast majority of people who are more or less on our side - feel that they are accomplishing something, when the most important thing, transforming public opinion to an anti-war majority, has already been accomplished. We also must encourage people to join organizations, or to create new ones, to maintain levels of local, state, regional and national mobilization, and to strengthen the anti-war presence and voice in the media and elsewhere.

      So we have to renew our focus on ending the occupation - providing a real exit strategy that people can use and articulate and defend, at least in broad general terms, in discussions with their congressional representatives, local city councils and other local officials, church and university leaders, etc. We have to define ending the occupation to mean bringing home all troops, closing the bases, saying no to expanding the war to Iran. We may want to escalate tactics (such as increasing the focus on CD) in certain circumstances, but most important is to escalate our demand - that we're done with calling for "oppose the war," and moving on to how to end it. We have to reflect the mainstream power we now represent - WE lead, demand that political officials follow.

      We also need to be creative in responding to the reality of a disempowered congress and a frightened and largely supine Democratic party. That means, besides demanding that our representatives take seriously our existence as a huge anti-war majority (and working with some of the Progressive Caucus to realize that goal), looking to a renewed focus on local municipal, church and other institutional resolutions calling for bringing the troops home; media work with a focus on exit strategies and bringing the troops home now; reminding our anti-war majority of the constitutional threats inherent in how this war is being waged, and keeping up our links with the other issues emanating from the disastrous consequences of the Bush policies.

      First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

      by GreenSooner on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:41:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A classic gambling addict's strategy (35+ / 0-)

    If this is correct, Bush is pursuing a classic gambling addict's strategy:  If you make a bet and lose, you simply double down on the next bet so that you come out ahead if you win.  And if you lose the NEXT bet, you double down again, and continue the process until you win, at which time you're guaranteed to come out ahead.

    Of course, the problem with this strategy, as brilliant as it seems to the simple-minded, is that you quickly reach a point where, no matter how much money you've got, you CAN'T keep increasing the size of your bets, and at that point, you've lost everything.  But the danger is that it DOES seem brilliant to the simple-minded, and virtually irresistable to the simple-minded who like to gamble, and what better prediction could one come up with of our great leader than that?

    Iraq hasn't worked, so we double down in Iran.  When that doesn't work -- and I can't imagine how anybody who knows anything about Iran or its history could possibly believe the scenario about the populace responding to a bombing campaign by overthrowing their government -- who knows where our great leader will have us double down next?  The difficulty, of course, is that he's gambling human lives on a war, not the money of his parents' friends on a series of Texas dry holes.

  •  Even Bush is not stupid enough (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crowdog, Overseas

    to use nuclear weapons against Iran,however,I do not doubt  that he would indeed bomb them with conventional weapons which would unleash a worldwide shit storm against this country.

    •  I don't believe in 'not stupid enough' (16+ / 0-)

      anymore. The simple and widely recognized fact is that conventional weapons can't completely destroy Iran's nuclear research facilities or their military installations. Weapons are more powerful and more accurate now than they were in the first Gulf War, but recall that even after 40 days of intense bombing, much of Saddam's hardware survived; Iran has had more than a decade to implement the lessons learned from watching that campaign unfold, and several more years to learn from the current war.

      It seems insane, but look at it from Bush's perspective: once he makes the decision to attack, the question of whether it's rational to use nuclear weapons no longer applies, and the only remaining question is whether or not military necessity requires them.

      •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sharman, Shotput8, means are the ends

        Bush was stupid enough to give bin Laden three of his main objectives.......on a silver platter with roses.

        Religious war against America and American interests - check
        Remove US forces from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf - check in Saudi Arabia
        Overthrow the "un-Islamic" governments of the region - done in Iraq.......


        Meet the New Pharisees, same as the Old Pharisees.

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:53:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and.....Coming soon (0+ / 0-)

          US 'withdraws' to bases, Iran in effective control/influence in regions much closer to Israel's borders.

          Provocation>rhetoric>incident>response>retaliation>escalation> no limit.

          A classic wife-beater drunk's "She made me do it"

          Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

          by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:02:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bush was asked at a rally... (12+ / 0-)

      whether he thought that current events were indicative of an impending Apocalypse, as described in the bible.

      Bush did NOT deny that to be the case.  He actually straddled the fence with his answer.  He left open the possibility.

      THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.

      Hey, that wasn't very...

      by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:19:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lost me at 'Even Bush' (10+ / 0-)

      For a long time I thought as you do, and I reasoned that there HAD to be some kernel of humanity or compassion or even plain old naked self-interest deep in Bush's psyche that would restrain him from doing something "unthinkable".

      I've become convinced, after watching how this administration has fed US troops and innocent Iraqi civilians into a meatgrinder, spied on us, put dangerous morons like Bolton into influential positions, etc., that there are no limitations to what Bush will do except those forcibly imposed on him by others.

      This is why I think the '06 elections are absolutely critical.  They're the only chance we have of slowing down these neocon bastards so they can do as little additional damage to the US as possible before the adults are back in charge.

      •  '06 Elections (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        Bush's advisors have to be considering the '06 elections too.  If they are going to nuke Iran, wouldn't they make their move before the elections?  If the '06 elections go the wrong way for them they could lose the chance to pull this caper off otherwise.  

        DITCH MITCH-Republican "Bush Buddy" Governor of Indiana

        by libnewsie on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:42:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Election ploy (0+ / 0-)

          The GOP needs a WAR and they need 1 now!! Oppps..I mean they need a "new" war cause the old one in Iraq is well just that getting stale and boring. The GOP has a brand spanking new war ready for our fall election time viewing done exclusively from the air no messy roadside bombs in this war. They're going to call this War O.peration I.ranian L.iberation and the opening scenes of the war are going to be Shock and Awe II!! Fox will be providing all the necessary cheerleading. The script is a simple one and the public is already well trained in it's particuliars ( emphasis here on LIARS) so no need for much of a new publicity campaign. Let's see it goes like this Iran is hiding the 9/11 plotters or atleast aided them before and after ( proof to come later if ever.) Ok, so now that we've established that IRAN was behind 9/11 it all leads from their. Sunstitute the leader of Iran for the leader of Iraq etc etc. Really all we need to do is change 1 letter on most of our program and project folders and the dates and were off to War again with our War Prez. I can't wait for the stirring reports about precision bombs flying through windows etc... Isn't War exciting and fun from 35,000 ft. The enemy looks likee ants and haven't u ever stepped on one of those nasty ant hills in your back yard and haven't you..... oh well u get what I mean right?

          "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

          by Blutodog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:20:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And to add to their schedule pressures (0+ / 0-)

          the Russian anti-aircraft systems Iran bought last year and are presumably installing (2 years from last fall).
            That's along with whatever else is getting purchased and/or manufactured by the Iranian industry.
             And not to put too fine a tin foil hat on that point, but I think the possibility that Russia will not 'allow' the US to actually attack an important customer (billions of necessary sales) isn't going unnoticed by the Pentagon planners. This attack could crash Russia's delicate economy I bet. Yes???
              Just noticed I still have Friday's tinfoil diaper on, all fixed...
              The possibility that Russia has transfered unknown capabilities and technologies to the Iranians has got to be a bug up the Pentagon's butt as well. In addition, the possibility that Russia has already sold Iran nukes and has been struggling to get the compromise so that they can legitimately transfer more radioactive shipments...as cover , possibly. The Russians are helping build the civilian reactors already iirc.That had better register with the Pentagon planners as well, as the consequences are ..well...possible. Would Russia risk that? "Who knows?"
              Now lest you get upset at that, there's a very scary precedent: McNamara has confirmed what was declassified in the 90's that during the Cuban missile crisis Cuba had Russian tactical nukes, est 5000, as well as 50000 troops iirc, and the frickin US didn't know about it!!!  The Kennedy brothers saved us all that time against this same strain of Dr Strangelove /neocon insanity. This possibility is real. The same cycle is at work:
          rhetoric>bluff>provocation>incident>retaliation>escalation> big losses>escalation...
              Some other of the same elements from the Cuban Missile Crisis are at work here as well: particularly the lack of good intelligence capabilities in Iran. Also parallel is the hawk/neocon/maniac side of the arguement, as well as the domestic pressures always affecting such an issue.
             I think this is a wedge issue in the Pentagon, as there are good people there who won't agree to sacrifice the lives of US military and foreign civilians so wastefully and needlessly.

          Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

          by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:45:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You're nuts... (6+ / 0-)

      ...if you think Bush won't use nukes. He's been itching to do just that for years. What is it about the word "sociopath" that evades your understanding?

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by nehark on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:21:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush is very dangerous (4+ / 0-)

      No one thought Bush stupid enough to go into Iraq after all for decades the prevailing thought was Saddam, bad as he was, held the country together, that was right on target.

      There are plenty within the crowd of neo cons that wanted him to go into Iraq in the first place who have been proposing for decades to use 'limited survivable nuclear weapons'--Reagan's propsal for instance in the 80's--which it seems clear he is dangerous enough to listen to these same people in the Reagan administration--Rice, Rummy, Cheney, et al.

      Their thought would be, well, we fought of the world criticism before, we can do this again by 'explaining' it all.

      Bush isn't rational, he's propelled by Ideology of the neo cons, and this is exactly the type of thing they would push forward.

    •  I urge you to think again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      I think you are making the same mistake I have made in the past - you are applying logical, rational thinking to people who are neither.

      On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

      by joanneleon on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:01:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush is thinking.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      (yeah, I know. Weird phrase to open a comment with)

      ... that even if a Dr. Strangelove type scenario happens, he'll be the virile leader deep in the mineshaft filled with attractive women of child-bearing age.

      If the rest of the world is destroyed in the process, who cares.

      Remember the Republican Motto:

      "I Got Mine. Go Fuck Yourself."

      congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

      by bartman on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:45:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  not gonna happen. but wait! (5+ / 0-)

    the administration are seriously considering an even more dangerous blunder with even more serious consequences.

    The purpose of such a ludricrous idea is to knock Bush's disgraces off the front page long enough to allow the Perp Party to cut losses this year, so that the Demos can't have enough power to pull off Censure or the dreaded "I" word.

    Sit back and watch the fun; they'll be pullling out the most outrageous stuff
    over the next two years.

    Remember, the Carlyle Group is counting on controlling the world's oil and the thought of the Left converting the planet to a hemp economy killls them (see what fun crazy conspiracies can be?).  

    A spiral road can open truth's wine.

    by omfreebogart on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:19:30 AM PDT

  •  Somebody please tell me that (5+ / 0-)

    even the republicans in congress, who want nothing to do with Bush at this point, will not allow this to happen.

    Someone please tell me that a president at 35 percent approval rating simply does not have the support even in his own administration to do something so insane.

    If he bombs another Muslim country, the game is fucking over. For one thing, the price of oil would go through the roof and our economy would collapse. Oh, unless we secure those southern oil fields in Iran? No, it will be all out armegeddon, ordinary Muslims will certainly support defending themselves against the US with whatever Iran has in its coffers.

    I predict mass immigration by tens of millions of people in this country to. . . Mexico.

    "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted"

    by donailin on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:32:27 AM PDT

    •  Bush does not read polls (7+ / 0-)

      and congress has become inconsequential, nothing for him to listen to.

      The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

      by Overseas on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:37:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately Bush can (4+ / 0-)

      without Congress's approval strike a country--not invade, but strike it, I think, but more than that
      this group doesn't care one bit what the Republicans in Congress think, hell, they've done all this domestic spying without the input of the Republicans in Congress, they've done so much without caring one bit what the Republicans in Congress thinks.

      The more I think about it, the more convinced that Bush is actually going to do this just because he is desperate enough politically to think he can get away with it.

    •  Alas, it is possible (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      donailin, KenBee

      that Congressional leaders of both parties have secretly signed off on the plan. This will not play out like Iraq. One day we will wake up and learn from the internets or TV that overnight we attacked Iran. I suspect that in the days following the attack, heightened radiation levels over neighboring countries or seismic data will suggest that we may have used nuclear weapons. In all likelihood the administration or the DOD will not acknowledge the use of the B61-11  mini nukes until it is revealed months later by investigative reporters in Italy or the UK. Remember how the whole white phosphorous revelations played out?

      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

      by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:10:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush is just cracking open fortune cookies (7+ / 0-)

    ...at this point, he's just hoping to throw a hail-mary pass to redeem his legacy.

    North Korea must be loving this...They get to stay under the radar and in the event that the U.S. actually goes through with this Iran bullshit, they will have us (and South Korea) completely by the balls.

    Hey, that wasn't very...

    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:34:48 AM PDT

  •  One side of me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    artifex, KenBee

    says to myself, "this is nuts to be thinking that after Iraq the neocon's could even consider a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran.  It's finally happened I'm a fringe lunatic nut."
    But then the other side realizes that in fact the PNAC disregards diplomacy and even domestic politics and simply looks for opportunities to steam roll history at a much quicker pace than even the most adapt can keep up with.  Iran is perfect for attack at this stage.  When will they get another chance?  If they wait too long, the boomarang of Iraq and an organized International resistance to their goals will have evolved.  No they will set up the November elections to be about Iran and preemptive attack and WMD all over again.

  •  let them try (0+ / 0-)

    they would succeed in destroying our own country only.

    the entire world would rise up and ensure america was finished if we tried to nuke another nation in today's world.  it would be akin to a suicide bombing.

    honestly i don't think bushco is THAT stupid to think that destroying the planet to bomb iran so george can 'rest easy' at 'avenging' his utter incompetence would really work.

    •  You need to think about what you already know. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zinger99

      as in..."honestly i don't think bushco is THAT stupid"

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by nehark on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:28:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're definitely stupid (0+ / 0-)

        incompetent and quite dangerous to the U.S. and the world but suicidal?  they have stolen too much money they intend on enjoying (assuming no indictments) to kill themselves. I always thought the bushco bot would let the evangelical side of the party worry about the rapture while the greedy side of the party tried to profit from it.

    •  You were going to get a rec from me (0+ / 0-)
      until I got to the last paragraph.

      Yes, the entire world would rise up. Even Canada would be faced with a hard choice.

      But what on earth makes you think bushco understands this, or even bothers to think about it?

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:29:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time to fire Donald Rumsfeld? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlyoshaKaramazov, KenBee

    If the neo-cons are really going to do this, wouldn't they want to get rid of Rumsfeld and his incompetence once and for all?

    That is...unless they actually WANT chaos and failure.  (more stuff for Halliburton to fix!)

    hmm, you decide.

    Hey, that wasn't very...

    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:15:34 AM PDT

    •  Fire Rumsfeld? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      paradox, metal prophet, Paper Cup, KenBee

      I'd say it's time to put the fucking nutjob into a straight jacket, lock him up in a cell and perform a lobotomy on him.  Then I'd say it's time to wipe Washington clean of all the neocon filthy and send them all into the Hague.  And that's even before they attempt to go through with any attack of Iran.  If they try that they should all be shot for completely and utterly fucking up the US and the world.  

      In light of the absolute mess they left in Iraq I really don't see how any sane person will go ahead and support this administration in attacking Iran.  At some point even the republicans among us must realize the party does not come before the people.  I would hope they stood up to the nuts and said... ENOUGH!!!  

      -7.38, -5.74 This is your world. These are your people. You can live for yourself today, or help build tomorrow for everyone.

      by DisNoir36 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:50:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh, of course it's been LONG PAST DUE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        I think he should have resigned like 1 month after we invaded Iraq... but I was asking the question in a sarcastic sort of way... like hmmm wouldn't the neocons benefit from getting rid of the guy if they really wanted to succeed?

        But see I think that what they consider success may not be what we think.  There's a chance they really want chaos.  They want to break it all apart.

        Hey, that wasn't very...

        by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:56:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  'they actually WANT chaos' (3+ / 0-)

      Yes. Soon you will all come around to see the tinfoil side of things.

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by nehark on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:30:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, Did I convert you (0+ / 0-)

      to the Chaos and corruption theme?
         Only 82,134 to go.

      Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

      by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:04:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  why do these people think (0+ / 0-)

    We will be embraced by the Iranians when we will be the ones bombing their cities, destroying their homes and families, and leaving their country in ruins?

    We have to get these stupid, dangerous wanna-be dictators out. of. power.

    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

    by CaptUnderpants on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:29:01 AM PDT

  •  More Bombs for Bushites (12+ / 0-)

    From the Los Angeles Times, April 6, 2006 (emphasis added):

    The Bush administration Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the United States' decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.

    The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War.

    Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it claims no longer will be reliable or safe.

    That doesn't mean we can't drive down those terrible capital gains taxes in the mean time, people.  Our robustical ecomonomy will pay all the bills!  What's we gots ta do is keep that meddling Nobel Peace Prize winner Baradei out of our way (Associated Press, April 8, 2006):

    Shrugging off U.S. opposition, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency will go to Tehran next week in an attempt to get nuclear concessions from the Iranian leadership, diplomats and officials said Friday.

    ...

    The U.S. mission recently urged ElBaradei not to go....

    "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

    by KateCrashes on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:29:32 AM PDT

  •  We must take back Congress. We must Impeach. (0+ / 0-)

    the stakes are now more clear than ever.

    Hey, that wasn't very...

    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:29:59 AM PDT

  •  Bushco is almost certain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EricS, freeyourmind

       to go after Iran soon. They are certainly aware that the elimination of Iraqi power has left Iran the big kid on the block in that region. Apparently it never occured to them that Iraq's Shiites would hook up with their brothers in Iran. Now that it has happened they see the true enormity of their error and want to set things "right" before the general public realizes Bush used American  money and lives to create a fundamentalist Islamic state aligned with those crazy hostage-taking Ayatollas in Iran.
       Now Bush Jr is learning why daddy left Saddam alone.

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" -Benito Mussolini

    by happy camper on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:30:29 AM PDT

  •  Well, one problem with our (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee
    nuclear arsenal is that it hasn't been used in such a long time that nobody's sure it will work as they expect.  Computer modeling can only go so far.
    In addition, if they send a real nuke into Iran, maybe it will cover up all the radiation that's been left behind by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq.  If you're going to be accused of a war crime, you might as well make it a big one.

    But, instead of wringing our hands, I would suggest an alternative policy.  To wit:

    Not only should the US end its opposition to the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, it should go further and support the extension of the zone to the shores of the Indian Ocean and extending down the Arabian and Sinai Peninsulas to include Egypt, which has already agreed to participate.
    This is a good time to initiate that because it will take some of the concern about an atrophying technology off the table.  Rather than starting a program of nuclear renewal, we should go forward with the decommissioning of a technology which threatens the demise of humans as we know them.

    Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

    by hannah on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:36:13 AM PDT

  •  Hardball with Chris Matthews- leaked TRANSCRIPT! (9+ / 0-)

    Check it out, I have it on good authority that this will be Monday's lead-in:

    "Is Hillary likeable in Iran? Let's play Hardball...
    The question today is: will the Iranians deal with a woman know-it-all President?
    I don't think she's likeable over there. They think she's pretending to be G.I. jane.  I mean, the Democrats are tough all of a sudden?  Can they nuke Iran?  Do they have enough sunny nobility to pull that off?  I don't think so.  What do you think Tom Delay?  I've got a poll here saying that my head is huge.  Do you agree with that?  Before you answer that, let me interrupt you... when are we going to see the President in a flight suit again?  I think we all miss seeing that."

    Hey, that wasn't very...

    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:54:43 AM PDT

  •  'Divine'? (8+ / 0-)

    How could anyone name something so obscene as a bomb "divine"?

    What's the next bomb going to be named--"Cock of Jesus"? Jesus.

    I gotta run, but here's an NPR story about naming bombs. NPR story

    We are all insurgents now.

    by The Gryffin on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:57:58 AM PDT

    •  It's the Holy Hang Grenade (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      means are the ends

      of video game fame.

      "It's supposed to be automatic, but actually you have to push this button." John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar

      by Orinoco on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:07:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are probably not referring to the almighty (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      means are the ends, navygrad

      Strake is an antique word once used to describe the thickness of the planking on the sides of naval ships  and divine is probably being used as a verb as in divining rod. Thus "Divine Strake" translates as "determining the width of the armor".

      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

      by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:23:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also, remember (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shotput8

        "Divine Strake" is not a weapon but a test of blast effects on underground, concrete, tunnel structures for use in determining the effective blast yield of small nuclear weapons. They are using a huge amount of potassium nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil to create the explosion.

        "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

        by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:54:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A week or so ago... (3+ / 0-)

    I was listening to Al Franken do his show from Santa Barbara.  He had the mayor on, and as they were talking, she said something that was pretty chilling to me.

    She said that she had recently received a letter from the mayor of Hiroshima.  (As an aside, I think that Santa Barbara and Hiroshima are sister cities.)  Anyay, in this letter, the mayor of Hiroshima said that he'd been made aware that BushCo. is conducting underground nuclear testing in the Nevada desert, and asking her if she knew anything about it.  Which she didn't, of course.

    I don't know how the mayor of Hiroshima might have come across such information, and I of course have no idea if it's true or not, but God knows that these people in the White House and the Pentagon are insane enough to do something like that.

    •  I live in another country. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader

      And I can tell you that the news is different outside the U.S. Even CNN reports internationally while they evade and obfuscate domestically. The international community KNOWS what's going on. And another thing...oh, nevermind.

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by nehark on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:38:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You say you want a Revolution? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    means are the ends

    Me too.

  •  Iraq going to hell... (0+ / 0-)

    While all this discussion of military action against Iran is going on the situation in Iraq is decending into complete chaos...

    http://katrinamemo.blogspot.com/...

    And now we are going to "liberate" another Middle East country that is ruled by an Adolf Hitler. That guy in Damascus better get right with God because he is the next on the NeoCon list.

  •  Screw 'Em...Iraq Hates Freedom, so Nuke 'Em! (0+ / 0-)

    This is a story that should send shivers up your spine. Bush is willing to nuke Iraq to force them to comply with his order to submit to democracy?

    It's hard to appreciate the depraved mind of Bush but here's what he's thinking: "What the hell! Screw 'em if they hate freedom and democracy let's just blow 'em all up, because we're in an election cycle and need to meet some deadlines, here. We can't sit around and lose an election while Iraq messes up the freedom we gave them!"

    Hersh has been investigating the possiblity of a large scale bombing campaign in Iraq every since he learned that the prospects of the American military's training of Iraqi police force was another futile effort. I doubt he would submit the story without unimpeachable sources.

    While I was praying once,and suddenly it occured to me that I was talking to myself.-Actor Peter O' Toole

    by Mr Populist on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:15:41 AM PDT

  •  If the French can get one to two million in the (6+ / 0-)

    streets to protest a change in their labor laws shouldn't America be able to get ten million to protest the "end of the world?"

    " Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." Sen Rob't. Byrd 10/11/02(R.I.P.)

    by LEP on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:20:08 AM PDT

  •  Time for preemptive impeachment (12+ / 0-)

    If the President is once again intending to usurp Congressional war powers, it is high time for Congress to act and impeach this dangerous lunatic along with the sociopathic Vice President as well. Call it preemptive impeachment. Although the list of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by this adminsitration is as long as as a mob boss's rap sheet, Congress has not found the intestinal fortitude to even investigate any crime, much less act upon it. After years of investigating Clinton for crimes he did not commit, there is scarcely a murmur about the crimes that Bush has openly committed and acknowledged. A preemptive attack upon Iran not only sounds plausible given the record of this White House and its stubborn refusal to admit any mistakes, but I suspect that the White House also believes that it may act without restraint because Congress has become it doormat instead of a co-equal partner. If there is any shred of integrity or courage left in this Congress, they must act now to prevent this lunatic from creating a potentially more disastrous situation with Iran than he has with Iraq. And to think that I had high hopes for the millenium being the start of a new era of peace and cooperation in the world.

    •  Nuking Iran is an impeachable offense. Period. (4+ / 0-)

      Bush needs to know that if he even comes close to pulling this shit - really, NUKING someone? to instigate regime change? Are you fucking kidding me? - that he'll be impeached, and after he's removed from office, he'll be shipped to the Hague for war crimes, because if we do something as asinine and destructive as attacking Iran (especially with nukes) we're going to need to prove that Bush didn't speak for America, and that the rest of the country does not endorse that.

      Until Bush got re-elected, I never would have thought that getting thousands (if not more) of Americans killed - be it 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, or the likelihood of bird flu in the next few years - would not only be a campaign platform, but one that Americans would SUPPORT.

      If Bush voters wonder why Democrats and independents don't like or support Bush, maybe it's because WE - UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE - ARE NOT SUICIDALLY STUPID.

      •  But we can't wait for it to happen (3+ / 0-)

        Use Bush's preemptive policy against him. The Congress cannot wait for the President to commit another impeachable offense. He has committed enough of them already. However, using nuclear weapons against another country goes beyond the pale, even for this lunatic administration. This is especially irrational in light of the fact that Iran has never even threatened us. Preemptive war cannot become our policy. Neither should preemptive domestic spying nor preemptive imprisonment nor any of the other hallmarks of a Fascist government. We can no longer trust this administration to act in a rational manner nor to act in our best interests. The Bush White House has always had a hidden agenda that has driven all of their actions and this agenda does not coincide with what is best for America. It is time for Congress to remove the President and the Vice President from office and for the judicial system to try and convict them for their crimes and to determine their punishment.

  •  I wonder if bin Laden (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EricS, orthogonal

    has gotten what he wanted, or more than he bargained for?  Is it in his interest to have delivered the initial blow to start a nuclear war in the middle-east?  Is chaos beneficial to his aims?

    Religious war against America and American interests
            check

    Remove US forces from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
            check

    Liberate Jerusalem from Israelis
            in the works

    Overthrow the "un-Islamic" governments of the region
            Bush did it for him in Iraq

    Restore the Caliphate, or pan-Islamic ruler
            ???


    Meet the New Pharisees, same as the Old Pharisees.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:26:24 AM PDT

  •  Oh my god. (6+ / 0-)

    I speculated on this a few weeks back, but by and large, I think most Americans won't get this news because it's so horrific that mainstream newsmedia aren't going to be able to make this the big story it should be.

    If Bush & Co. pre-emptively nuke Iran, even in a limited strike, we Americans will never be safe again, anywhere. We already had a second-term election in which we, the American people, effectively told the rest of the world that what BushCheney are doing is fine with us. We will be vilified everywhere.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    More fun than talkin' about Anne Counter's giant Adam's Apple ! [Cue Austin Powers] "It's a MAN, baby!"

    by Cenobyte on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:48:44 AM PDT

  •  I find nothing wrong with it (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    ZappoDave
    Hidden by:
    Paper Cup, theyrereal

    We cannot afford to ignore Iran. That doesn't mean nuking Iran right away. But if you want to negotiate from a position of strength, all options should be on the table.

    Including a nuclear strike.

    •  you cannot win a nuclear war (5+ / 0-)

      so its not a strength but you were kidding right?

    •  Well, it COULD work (10+ / 0-)
      0
      But if you want to negotiate from a position of strength, all options should be on the table.

      Including a nuclear strike.

      But if you want to negotiate from a position of strength, all options should be on the table.

      Including burning our children alive as sacrifices to Molloch.

      Accountability moment, my ass!

      by orthogonal on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:12:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, since we are talking about a Rethug plan... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZappoDave

        ...only poor, minority, non-Christian, and liberal children will be sacrificed. Everyone else can go to the Alabama National Guard... sort of.

        Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978. -7.63, -5.64

        by wiscmass on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:20:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A pre-emptive nuclear strike (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZappoDave

      would be the ultimate terrorist action. Just think of what you are saying. Some jihadists believe that, because the Bush administration is a threat to countries of that region and a threat to Islam in general, that any option is acceptable, including the detonating of a nuclear device in a US city. From my perspective, the Bush plans amount to the same sort of reasoning. I can't believe that anyone would buy into the premise that "all options should be on the table".

      Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      by slatsg on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:16:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was with you till (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZappoDave

        your last sentence. We can never remove anything from the table, that is what stopped the Cuban Crisis. The use of a Nuke in Iran is just plain stupid and yes I would say a terrorist act by Bush. That said tho if Iran we to go totally as stupid as Bush and use a WMD, we would have to respond.

        -8.63 -7.28 Vote+$.01 I will vote Dem., but in protest and support.

        by OneCrankyDom on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:30:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My key word was pre-emptive (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Canadian Reader, sharman, ZappoDave

          From my reading of the scenario, the nuclear threat is in reponse to Iran's alleged plans on building its own nuke. It's not likely that Iran will strike the US first. Even Saddam wasn't that crazy. That said, I stand my original assertion.
          As for the Cuban crisis, Kennedy's ability the compromise with the Ruskies was also essential to settling the crisis. We pulled missles out of Turkey and allowed them to save some face. We also agreed not to invade Cuba, which was the reason for the missles in the first place. Finally, had we not settled and a nuclear war ensued, in hindsight the reasons for the war would have been judged quite inane.

          Don't Panic - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

          by slatsg on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:59:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And in any discussion don't forget (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slatsg

            that the US didn't know squat about Cuba, and what was going on. There were 5000 Russian tactical nukes in Cuba..artillery shells, torpedoes, mines, that we didn't know about. Also there were 50000 Russian troops. McNamara has confirmed this, and it was declassified in the 90's.
               This parallels the situation in Iran. We don't know squat, and the Russians have sold so much new weaponry I think it possible that Iran has Russian nukes, along with the unknown capabilities of the Russian weapons and radar systems that Iran has.
                 Also parallel is that we have sitting ducks on three sides of Iran… troops, ships, sailors, bases etc.
                 Also parallel is that Russia is a big supplier to Iran, they stand to lose a billion dollar customer to Halliburton...they will resist that.
                 A very dangerous miscalculation, saved by the instincts of the Kennedy brothers, against the efforts of the neocon/hawk/maniac wing of the K admin. These people also proposed seriously some false flag operations to strike at US citizens and/or military to have a pretext to war. Kennedy stopped that too...but the human software virus is still reproducing.
                  The blogistanians have to be ready to report and expose these tactics premptively...kind of like what we're doing here, cause...you never know.

            Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

            by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:31:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  the NeoCons say: 'Use em or lose 'em!' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZappoDave

        just sitting there with nothing to do... their little preeeeeeciooooous...

        Hey, that wasn't very...

        by diplomatic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:49:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary, is that you? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CJB, tlh lib, ZappoDave, KenBee

      Cool that you're posting here now.

      Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

      by Bob Johnson on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:59:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I rated it up (0+ / 0-)

      because I disagree with it.

      This is the opposing arguement for this insanity.

      We have to be able to confront the unthinkable.

      Nuclear War.
  •  Using nuclear weapons?! (5+ / 0-)

    Insulated in his bubble as Bush is, there have to be people inside the White House saying "Don't do it, Mr. President!" if he's even considering it.

    First use of a nuclear weapon - any nuclear weapon, tactical or otherwise, short of the imminent conquest of the United States is opening the gates of hell and anyone over the I.Q. of 40 has to know it.

    Using nuclear weapons as a legitimate tool of war just isn't done after Hiroshima/Nagasaki, deliberately masturbatory neocon fantasies aside.  And anyone who talks about it in that way (as a realistic option, and I know they have) -- is doing exactly that .. masturbating in public.

    IT'S BEYOND INSANE.  TO EVEN SERIOUSLY CONSIDER IT IS INSANE.

    If the Bush uses a nuclear weapon, any nation with WMD will try to justify their use in any other wars or hot spots that flare up.  North Korea could nuke Japan or South Korea and justify it on the basis of "being threatened".  And the world wouldn't stand for it, much less the U.S.  The consequences are unimaginable.  To repeat myself, it's opening up the Gates of Hell!  

    "Serious consequences" ?

    I don't believe this story is true, because if it were true, those are circumstances that call for the immediate REMOVAL of Bush and his entire Administration and it's hard for me to credit that even the most Bush-compliant Republican would deem it otherwise.

    Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican!

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:40:23 AM PDT

    •  End of Times politics (0+ / 0-)

      If the Bush uses a nuclear weapon, any nation with WMD will try to justify their use in any other wars

      Did that kind of argument stop the administration from throwing out the Geneva convention? No.

      I am becoming increasingly worried that Bush, and at least some of the people in the insider group around him, actually believe that we are living in the End Times and are devising policies based on that premise.  Who cares about the environment, public opinion or a nuclear war if you want to hasten the Apocalypse?  

    •  You mean, you don't WANT to believe it is true. (0+ / 0-)
      This is what happens when you elect narcissists and sociopaths to run a country. They don't think consequences apply to them.

      Life is going to get very dangerous until these people are removed from power. I pray that until then, sane Americans will be able to block them from most of the irrevocable moves. Especially this one! But they will cause damage -- count on it. They're cornered.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:50:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't buy it either (0+ / 0-)

      If you read the entire article by Sy, it's not unreasonable to assume that the "nuke option" is nothing but the fact that the government has certain options that they wouldn't use. And it could be just a threat.

      I think we're over-reacting and focusing on that aspect of the story. The real story is that Bush thinks there will be a "regime change" if we bomb them. That's the insane part that could actually come true. Then we're in another failed war with the world getting more and more pissed at us.

      No way we'd use nukes. I just don't believe it.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

      by Dunbar on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:57:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In the Bush administration's defense: (0+ / 0-)

      (Boy, I never thought I'd have to say that!)

      "Many countries use underground facilities to conceal and protect military personnel, weapons, and equipment. Most of these facilities are beyond the reach of conventional explosive weapons and can be destroyed only by nuclear weapons. Earth-penetrating weapons have been considered as an alternative to conventional nuclear weapons because they could destroy such targets with up to 25 times less energy than weapons detonated at the surface." -- Source here.

      If diplomacy truly does fail (it hasn't yet) and a Democratic or Republican president opts to take out Irani nuclear facilities in order to slow their development of The Bomb, we would just about have to use a nuclear weapon. They're not just for genocide, guys.

      If the facilities are located in civilian areas, we've do of course have another problem entirely and nukes are totally out of the question. For any out-of-the-way facility, though, I think we should all recognize that nukes have to be on the table. "Nuke" is a scary word for all of us, but at the end of the day it's just another type of bomb.

      I'm glad the right wing understands that we liberals are indeed elite.

      by Renleve on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:15:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read the article (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      There have been objectors, but the White House has silenced them.  When the Joint Chiefs expressed dismay at the prospect of using the B61-11s, the White House responded, "But it was your idea!"

      There is literally no one who can provide a real check on this gang's power.

  •  Nukes use em or lose em!! (0+ / 0-)

    This whole Iranian nuke story is right out of the old Cold War I bet Donald Rumsfield feels right at home. The BU$h gang must really be in deep doo doo if they have to even start a rumour like this one to change the subject. Wasn't Rep. Cynthia Mckinney's awful behavior enough to show how craven the opposition is these days? Hell, how dare the women NOT wear a badge? You'd think she'd know better? Now that's the kind of crime the MSM media can really bite into these days. In fact I think with just a little twist here or there I can connect the dots and show how Cynthia is aligned with the Iranian terrorists that caused 9/11. Think this is getting a little weird? You can count on Fox running this story as it's lead story tonight and using my blog as it's source right? Why not whose going to challenge them? If Bu$h and the boys want to nuke Iran they're going to and nobody is going to get in their way. The Air Force is totally in the thrall of the religious right and to these boys the only good Muslim etc etc.. u get my drift here. Many of us here have been saying for months as Bu$hCo drifts lower and lower in the polls he and his gang will get much more dangerous and I think we can see that starting to occur.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

    by Blutodog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Contact the Congress critters and tell them what? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lisa, scrutinizer, means are the ends

    Contact the Congress critters and tell them what?

    That we want to stop driving our SUVs like they're toys not tools?

    That we're ready to fork out large amounts of tax $$$s fo the development of a hydrogen economy, with the water for hydrolosis (currently, the least expensive way to produce hydrogen) rapidly becoming a privatized commodity?

    It took years to get to this juncture in history, and  George W. Bush, as much as I despise him, did NOT get us where we are without American society's volitional complicity.

    It's a problem (stupid wars) that our politicians aren't going to fix, because it's the political kiss of death to tell your constituents that their way of life, lifestyle, or whatever, is going to have to change.

    It's on US, not our politicians... again, a problem.

    Here's the view from the heart of Pipelineistan

    Here are a couple of other backgrounders from my blog that may make it clear why pleading, bitching and whining isn't gonna stop anything.

    'The central battlefield in the global resource war... The entire Middle East and Central Asia'

    and
    US Plan for the “Great Middle East” THE KURDISH PIPELINE

    Leigh leighm (AT) leighm.net

    by leighm on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

  •  .6 Kilotons? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Renleve
    Just a note, I believe the Divine Strike .6 kiloton bomb you're talking about doesn't weigh 700 tons.   Rather, it explodes with the force of 700 tons of TNT.  Therefore, it is possible that it might be light enough to air drop.  Still, that's one big fucking bomb.

    "Apes don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"

    by WesClarkJr on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:51:11 AM PDT

  •  say what? (4+ / 0-)

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

    they're pinning their foreign policy hopes on the notion that iran's mullahs will be embarrassed about being bombed?  that this will somehow lead to a successful coup in Iran?  that's even more retarded than "parades and rose pedals!"  

    where the hell do they get these kafkaesque pollyanna ideas?  and where the hell is KE's "logic meter" - we're deep into wtf territory here.  paul craig roberts said he feared they were crazy enough to do it.  and i'm afraid he's right in that.

    weather forecast

    The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. - Paine

    by Cedwyn on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:08:29 AM PDT

  •  What are the reasonable limits to action? (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    KenBee

    I think there are lots of people who think Bush is going to push us into war with Iran and that that is a bad idea. So I wonder, what actions would it be unacceptable to take to prevent this? Would acts of terrorism in the United States be unacceptable? What about light arson? What about murder? What about multiple murders? Should we only stick to nonviolent means, and if they don't work, then we just get the war and there's nothing we can do? Or should we extend the boundaries of acceptable protest and disruption to include "any means necessary"?

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:25:18 AM PDT

    •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

      that kind of talk is out of bounds here, and I'm rating this down to hide it from the thousands of readers who won't see it if anybody else rates it that way. That will hide it from public view, except to TU's. I don't disagree with you emotionally (see my sig), but it's not a discussion that you should post to a public blog. Your own maybe, just not here. Nothing against you, just against talk like that here. It's the murder/terrorism talk mostly, not cool.
        Now Valtin talked of general strikes...great. I'm amazed no one else has rated this down before me, yet it's been here all day. Weird.

      Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

      by KenBee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:57:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Only one answer to Bush's war drive (0+ / 0-)

    GENERAL STRIKE AGAINST WAR AND BUSH'S DRIVE TO NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION

    "... the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition."

    by Valtin on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:52:53 AM PDT

  •  Read Iran's Op Ed in Friday NYT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee

    April 6, 2006
    Op-Ed Contributor
    We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program
    By JAVAD ZARIF
    Javad Zarif is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.
    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    The op-ed, which deserves reading in full, says in part:

    ...Lost amid the rhetoric is this: Iran has a strong interest in enhancing the integrity and authority of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It has been in the forefront of efforts to ensure the treaty's universality. Iran's reliance on the nonproliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

    Let me be very clear. Iran defines its national security in the framework of regional and international cooperation and considers regional stability indispensable for its development. We are party to all international agreements on the control of weapons of mass destruction. We want regional stability. We have never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used on us, we have never used them in retaliation — as United Nations reports have made clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years.

    Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection regimen by the United Nations. We have allowed more than 1,700 person-days of inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting failures. Most of the outstanding issues in connection with uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy water research reactor program have been resolved.

    Even the presence of highly enriched uranium contamination — an issue that some say proves the existence of an illicit weapons program — has been explained satisfactorily. Don't take it from me. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, its findings tend "to support Iran's statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed H.E.U. contamination."

    It's worth noting, too, that Iran has gone beyond its international obligations and allowed the atomic agency to repeatedly visit military sites — and to allow inspectors to take environmental samples. The agency did not observe any unusual activities; the samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations.

    Most important, the agency has concluded time and again that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

    The Iranian ambasador says Iran has been ready to negotiate since 2003 and lists ten points Iran is willing to do to bring the issue to a peaceful conclusionj. Threats, he said, are ineffective.  

    This is an important starting point to understand what Bush is doing in the way of starting another war.

  •  This horrifying news prompted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tr4nqued, KenBee, means are the ends

    this email to both my Senators.

    The news in the New Yorker has sent chills up my spine.  Hersh reports that Bush intends to have a war with Iran and is considering a massive bombing campaign that includes the use of nuclear weapons.

    If Bush does this, and his past actions and arrogance suggest he will, he seriously risks starting a regional, perhaps even a global war, not to mention the sickening moral implications of such a plan.  There has never in my life been such obvious evidence that our country is in clear and imminent danger.  A threat not only from without, but more immediately from within.

    Please, do what you can to remove this criminal, George Bush, from office.  His list of crimes and misdemeanors has grown far too long.  For the sake of this country and the sake my young daughter's generation, remove this stain from our Executive Office.

    There is no case anymore not to impeach.  Not when the risks to our country and the world are so great.

  •  Sy Hersh deserves another pulitzer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, means are the ends

    But really, were any of us really surprised by this news?

  •  This will be the last straw (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimberley, KenBee, means are the ends

    I've already talked it over with my fiance. If we bomb Iran, I'm going Conscientious Objector.

    I won't be the only one. The only problem is that when everyone with brains and/or a conscience leaves a military, well, you can guess what will be left.

    Somebody really needs to tell the White House that "1984" is a cautionary tale, not a political guidebook.

    by jabbausaf on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:09:19 AM PDT

    •  Well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      Rumsfeld has pretty well weeded out anybody in the brass that would give 'em a hard time on Iran anyway. And those of sound mind that stayed are will keep trying to inject judicious reason upwards at civilian command, I'm sure, but they'll be probably retired too before the rubber hits the road in Iran.

      I feel sorry for NCO's and troops in Iraq. They're going to be slaughtered if we strike Iran (with or without nuclear weapons).

      The soul that is within me no man can degrade. - Frederick Douglass

      by Kimberley on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:15:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stop asking for Congressional investigations... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimberley, Existentialist

    We should instead be demanding that Bush be investigated by a panel of psychiatrists.  And I'm serious.

    •  To whom would you address (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      such a demand?

      There's no enforcement.  Bush can do, and does, whatever the hell he wants.  There are no consequences.  No one can stop him -- the Repubs have carefully cut the teeth out of any means of protecting us from this nutjob.

  •  A potential Adolf Hitler????? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    means are the ends

    look whose talking.

    a splendid time is guaranteed for all

    by KBueno on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:30:12 AM PDT

  •  very good! I agree. I too did a post on this. I (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    means are the ends

    just did one that at the end I declared we look like we will be the nation responsible for destroying the world.
      I am afraid that Bush is going to use Nukes as he is backing himself and us into a corner. It will be the opening of the nuclear pandora's box.
      All hell on earth will be the result and I still hope someone is smart enough to realize this and head this off.

    James M Joiner www.anaveragepatriot.com or http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

    by jmsjoin on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:49:35 AM PDT

  •  jms, you say: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Existentialist

    "I still hope someone is smart enough to realize this and head this off."

    The only effective "someone" is us. I'm afraid we're going to have to come to grips with this reality very soon.  Who else is there?  The Democrats have more than proven themelves incapable of facing facts re: Bush's raging egomania.  They're still looking for some rational thought process there in the WH.  

  •  Don't Let History Repeat Itself (0+ / 0-)

    Starting new conflicts because the previous ones aren't going well has been tried before.

    With disastrous consequences.

    By countries WE fought against in the past.

    Doesn't anyone ever learn?

  •  Bush to start WW III ? (0+ / 0-)

    Possibly for oil profits?
    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are the "ultimate dead-enders."

    It's Dick's and George's world. We just have to live in it. Assholes!

    by hoplite9 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:42:36 PM PDT

  •  Bunker Buster Kool Aid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, menodoc, KenBee

    REMINDER RE BUSHCO LOGIC
    ------------------------
    Before:  "We can't rule out options in advance.  We need to keep all options on the table."

    After:  "You authorized me to do it."
    -------------------------

    Now about that nuclear option:  You think it's been proven that the "bunker-busters" actually work?  Pay attention to what Senator Feinstein said in a speech last July.

    In April of this year, a group of experts of the National Academies of Sciences confirmed what we have long argued -- that according to the laws of physics, it is simply not possible for a missile casing on a nuclear warhead to survive a thrust into the earth deep enough to take out a hard and deeply buried military target without spewing millions of tons of radiation into the atmosphere.

    Check out the statements of two highly qualified physicists from the transcript of a program that appeared on ABC (A as in Australia) May 24, 2004:

    Narration:
    It's hard to believe now, but nuclear excavation was taken very seriously in [the 1950's and 1960's], and many experiments were actually done. And their results have serious implications for building a bunker-busting nuke. In fact they contradict the military line, and indicate the radioactive fallout would be far from safe. That's according to Princeton University physicist Rob Nelson, who recently reworked the old data.

    Dr Rob Nelson:
    We showed that if you use the smallest yield nuclear weapon that we have right now on a bunker buried hypothetically in Bagdad it would kill somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people just from the radioactive fallout alone.

    Graham Phillips, Reporter:
    Would any of the radioactive fallout be contained?

    Dr Everet Beckner:
    Yes, much of it will be contained. Trouble is not all of it. You can't assure people that it would be all that would not be correct but some large percentage and again it would depend on how deep you get it and-and the geology but typically you're looking for containment of eight or ninety or so percent of the radio activity.

    Narration:
    Francis doesn't agree with those figures.

    Dr Francis Slakey:
    If the target you're imagining is a bunker three hundred feet deep, to get at that you're gonna need a forty kiloton explosion, that's just the laws of physics and you can't get around that and a forty kiloton explosion is gonna spread radiation out over a ten mile area.

    Graham:
    It won't be contained?

    Dr Francis Slakey:
    It can't be contained.

    Graham Phillips, Reporter:
    Would 90% of it be contained?

    Dr Francis Slakey:
    Ninety percent of it will fall within the ten-mile area.

    Are you wondering yet what will happen to the other 10%?  Hey, it's just some radioactive materials, right?

    Narration:
    And the physicists don't agree with that other selling point of bunker-busting nukes either...that their heat and radiation will destroy biological and chemical weapons. Imagine this New York subway is a terrorist's bunker.

    Graham Phillips, Reporter:
    So what if I had my store of biological weapons stored here in the underground? Could you get those with a bunker buster?

    Dr Rob nelson:
    All you'd do is spread them around. You'd eject them along with the radioactive fallout and disperse them over a wide area.

    Narration:
    The problem is a bomb produces only a very short burst of intense heat...and even very hot short bursts don't kill bacteria.

    Ready to roll the dice?  Ready to be fooled again?

    I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in a homeland.

    by homeland observer on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:46:24 PM PDT

  •  KNOW WHAT? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, eddienic, KenBee

    I posted stories like this about six months ago when pentagon sources leaked DICK CHENEY'S requests for a war plan that included the option of nuking Iran.

    KNOW WHAT? People called me a nutcase.

    I guess AFP and The New Yorker are nuts too.

    In fact, everyone except Bush and Cheney and those who follow their orders must be nuts. Waging wars according to Hitler's doctrine of pre-emptive warfare must be the sane thing to do, and everyone else except the neocons has been nuts since the trials at Nuremburg and the founding of the UN.

    It must be the sane thing to do to violate the nuclear test ban treaty in pursuit of Holy Wars (Divine Strike must be a spiritual exercise, demonstrating the love of Jesus).

    It must be the sane thing to do wage a NUCLEAR WAR against a nation that has not engaged in aggressive warfare since the founding of the UN. That must be it. I must be crazy to call attention to it and oppose it.

    It must be craziness, too, that makes me distinctly remember that the attack on Khobar Towers was the work of Al-Queda, but recently, like something out of Orwells 1984, the news media are reporting that Iran was behind that attack, and it's being reported as if that was the truth all along.

    No qualifier. No new information that came up, updating the info we have about who was behind the attack. No mention that previously, the attack was atrributed to al-queda. DOWN THE FUCKING MEMORY HOLE.

    We don't have fascist totalitarians in the White House waging aggressive wars and subverting the rule of law here and all over the world. That's crazy.

    None of you will understand this next disclaimor. It's for my friends on another forum. Iceman, Von Johnson et al: SARCASM.

  •  Are generals patriots? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee

    One of the major disappointments arising from the marketing of the war on Iraq is that not a single one of the senior administration, intelligence or military officials who knew full well that the invasion was likely to result in disaster had the courage to stand up, resign and go public with their concerns. I don't know if that would have stopped the war, but it would at least have put a speed bump in the path of the administration's marketing effort and the wholesale embrace of it by the press.

    I agree 100%

    The image of an American general that has been forming in my mind in the last three years is that of an "aparatchik" more concerned with their puny careers than with the future of the country they swore to defend.

    There have been retired generals that have spoken out against the follies of this warmonging administration.  But no general has shown any guts, said anything that risked even a reprimand let alone dismissal or demotion.

    Nothing, not on the WDM intelligence cooking, not about torture, not about Guantanamo, not about white phosphorous, not about occupation plans.  

    Silence gets you stars, but not the respect of fellow Americans.  

    I am less and less impressed with generals and admirals every day.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 01:46:52 PM PDT

  •  If AmeriKills Nukes Iran (0+ / 0-)

    That's the end of it for me.  Perhaps they will then close the borders and start murdering dissidents, but I do not see how I can lead a "normal" life as a citizen of a Reich that does such things.

    "We are so small between the stars, so large against the sky . . . and lost amidst the subway crowds, I try to catch your eye." (L. Cohen)

    by proudtinfoilhat on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:02:32 PM PDT

  •  They love the power frfom the glamour of those (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    DemocraticLuntz

    sophiscatated women 0f: I'm the most powerful man on earth and "I've got a secret!

    Well Mr Bush and Chief of Staff Pace your military might have a little secret for you!

    Coming to your town soon! The Social Security Adminstartion Electric and Power Company. "Omen Tuffy" 1918-1992

    by generic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:40:10 PM PDT

  •  seymour hersch? (0+ / 0-)

    He's a reliable source. This is an outrageous accusation of the Bush regime BUT Seymour Hersch is someone to listen to. Scary. When can our government stop sucking?

    Help me retire to Hawaii by age 30! Pimp my site Simple Vegetarian Recipes!

    by OrangeClouds115 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:10:06 PM PDT

  •  calling a bomb 'Divine' is too weird (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CJB

    things are getting pretty freakin' scary around here

davidb1224, paradox, Superskepticalman, AustinSF, zzyzx, fpc, Cowalker, jotter, teacherken, Rita in DC, GOTV, lipris, ubikkibu, Mountain Don, Pandora, Powered Grace, saraswati, emal, gorlim, JTML, Shockwave, Wintermute, CaptUnderpants, byoungbl, meg, genethefiend, brendan1963, LEP, StevenJoseph, marjo, voltayre, PanzerMensch, texorama, exNYinTX, memberofthejury, Plan9, kissfan, RubDMC, loudGizmo, Thistime, EvieCZ, tyler93023, bronte17, medaka, EricS, diplomatic, Athenian, Baldwiny, Loquatrix, HippyWitch, highacidity, bluesteel, KMc, mhale85, shock, buckeyekarl, Glic, boilerman10, khloemi, peraspera, cognitive dissonance, PeteZerria, Alna Dem, imagine80, DemocracyLover in NYC, kharma, menodoc, hhex65, milofischi, danthrax, missliberties, Sycamore, ghostofaflea, TXsharon, Stampy51, i dont get it, Penny Century, nika7k, snakelass, rlharry, jmm57, inclusiveheart, bwintx, retired, OrangeClouds115, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, HK, rebirtha, ChaosMouse, kd texan, The Gryffin, rockmoonwater, Shapeshifter, guyermo, iliketodrum, donailin, bjackrian, Tarindel, playon, case, hiredman, coloradobl, LarisaW, PBen, Simplify, Valtin, ChemBob, juliesie, viral, Bouwerie Boy, vassmer, GreyHawk, Overseas, Prison4Bushco, jtg, RickE, Shotput8, wiscmass, zinger99, Lisa Lockwood, LithiumCola, verso recto, Spathiphyllum, kkjohnson, Krusty, Alan Arizona, Paper Cup, Mehitabel9, skywriter, Strawberrybitch, occams hatchet, Legolas, JosephAZ, methodishca, bee tzu, tommymet, PatsBard, Fasaha, ABA, BlueInARedState, Russgirl, HoundDog, tbrucegodfrey, KenBee, compbear, Wary, Tao, quinque, philboy1, DarkestHour, TalkieToaster, Matt O, thomaswilliam, The Wife of Bath, ProgressForGoodGov, herzen, Coffee Geek, Freedom Fries Artist, stinerman, numinus, means are the ends, DrClayForrester, generic, procera, ms badger

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site