Skip to main content

The Nation magazine's on-line edition has a report detailing early Navy moves aimed at an attack on Iran as early as October 21.

By Dave Lindorff

(From The Nation online, Sept. 21, 2006)

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received recent orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

For the rest of the story, go to:

Originally posted to dlindorff on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:32 PM PDT.

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

  •  I pray that our military will say no (115+ / 0-)

    What other chance do the people of sovereign nations with oil have?

    - Israel has the right to exist, and responsibility to coexist.

    by Opinionated Ed on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:33:55 PM PDT

  •  Why tank the Stock Market before the election (38+ / 0-)

    If we bombed Iran, oil would spike and the market would tank.

    Why tank the stock market right before the election, unless the Bush folks are so cocky that they think the market would come back by 11/8.

  •  a surprise (14+ / 0-)

    presumes a lack of expectation. i would call it an "inevitable rove"...

    Nature is not only more complex than we think. It is more complex than we can think. -Frank Egler

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:37:56 PM PDT

  •  Not so sure this is the suprise (16+ / 0-)

    but I have read several articles concerning the already
    existing war with Iran. What I have read so far is that the us is already conducting campaigns inside Iran with special forces.

    I would be more apt to think that Osama Bin would be paraded out at the last moment, with what is happening currently in Pakistan. But I appreciate this post and now I will keep my eyes and ears open for any movement here. Thanks.

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson

    by kidshaleen on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:38:38 PM PDT

    •  They are praying for a violent response from Iran (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snakelass, corvo, blueoasis, bnasley

      If they get one, such as the sinking of a US warship, the gloves will be off and it will be bombs over Tehran.  Maybe some nukes too.  These guys are fucking  insane, like cornered rats.

    •  Osama Bin Laden is my quess (0+ / 0-)

      Pakistan "truce" with the Taliban, freeing of Taliban prisioners, no fight zone in Eastern Pakistan, in return for ........ Osama Bin Laden.

      Also remember the Saudi's control Aljazeera, which have plenty of juicy video tapes they are sitting on, waiting for the call from Karl Rove.

      Donate, fight, volunteer, never surrender, never retreat.

      How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?

      by ca democrat on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:39:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What good is a navy in the mountains? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Your scenario makes sense: Musharuff takes a hands off approach to the border region so he can cover his ass when the U.S. goes in to mop up the Talilban remnants. I'm a voice in wilderness crying that Bin Laden is dead...but, even if I'm right, they can probably capture or kill his number two and score big political points before elections.

        On the other hand, unless I'm missing something, a naval fleet wouldn't be effective in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and indications are the Navy is being deployed. Since I've become an unrepentent conspiracy theorist, I could be convinced that both options are in play: special ops crawling all over Waziristan while the Navy blockades Iran.  These dumb shits do irrational things for political reasons- to appease their measley thirty five percent base.

        BTW, I do not believe the Saudis control Al Jazeera, altho they would like to.

  •  SO.... if you're already guilty of unjustified (6+ / 0-)

    agression- it's OK to attack someone else when you HAVE "real" reasons.....

    How insane are these people!?!   a few cruise missles into tankers in the Gulf and oil's at $200 a barrel and gas is at $5..........

    Bush may think the Apocalypse is already on the way - so why not hurry it up.... but I want another option......

  •  W won't stop til he hits the "Rapture Button". (31+ / 0-)

    He's fucked things up so bad that the only way to save face is for Jesus to come back and haul his stupid ass off the planet.


    by Intercaust on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:41:54 PM PDT

  •  Strange little bit from the story (19+ / 0-)

    According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet

    'Events are in the saddle and ride mankind.' Emerson

    by deepsouthdoug on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:46:36 PM PDT

  •  spokesman KAFKA? (8+ / 0-)

    At first I thought that it was April and I was the fool but alas the fools are running the show.

  •  imagine how we'd feel (14+ / 0-)
    if a Navy strike force, including an aircraft carrier and battleships bristling with cruise missles, were cruising around just off one of our coasts.

    Nice move, America.

    Price of oil too low for you?

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:47:07 PM PDT

  •  It can get worse which is the most depressing (21+ / 0-)

    thought, but it is true.  People do not deserve worse.  I wish they would stop letting it happen.

  •  What surprise? (13+ / 0-)

    The moment I read, "...October surprise..." I knew in my gut that they were going to jump on Iran - no matter what else was going on. This 'fuck-democracy-this-is-our-dominion' thing is a juggernaut which won't be slowed down by protests or elections or UN censure or impeachment investigations or strikes or any kind of attacks.
    As far as bushco is concerned, les joux sont fait.
    I would like to think I could be wrong, but the only thing I can see saving us is a coordinated legislative/military plan already in place to round them all up -- you know, give them enough rope to hang themselves and then drop the net. Make it so.

    Look Out ~ the meek are getting ready!

    by DvCM on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:54:49 PM PDT

  •  Na ga happen (23+ / 0-)

    We'd go in the streets, where they would microwave us. They'd have to clean up crispy Kossacks from every major city.

  •  If They Lauch This War Then They Launch Coup Here (17+ / 0-)

    I don't think they can launch another unprovoked war without formally taking over the entire government at least until they can seat their game-winning Justice.

    I think the rest of the world will react strongly enough that they'll need to be in full command of the nation to deal with all the after effects.

    So basically I'm saying I think the surprise will be something different. If not, there won't be an election in the usual sense.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:57:48 PM PDT

    •  I believe that the "won't be an election (8+ / 0-)

      in the usual sense" situation will actually occur somewhat prior to the 2008 election.  They'll use the outcome of Democrats winning some mojo in 2006 to affix blame on them for some odd set of BushCo-caused issues, then blast away abroad while negative attention/spin is pointed our way.

      Typical Rovian setup: our strength becomes twisted into an appearance of our weakness, we get caught up in the PR battles, then lose the war.

      So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way.

      by wader on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:05:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The war won't be "unprovoked" (12+ / 0-)

      Did you see the obscure story the other day about the American embassy in Syria? One news site had a story saying that the Syrians were accusing us of attacking our own embassy, then trying to pin it on them.

      It is a sad commentary on just how little trust I have of Cheney and Rove -- but the idea of an "Iranian" attack on one of our ships that is actually carried out by our own hirelings doesn't seem too far-fetched.

      And, FWIW -- I don't think Bush would be in on it. I think they'd keep him in the dark, so he could play his role of CiC with true passion and gusto.

      Bruce in Louisville
      "Fight them till hell freezes over, and then fight them on the ice." -- Van Os

      by bmaples on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:56:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ammo, canned goods, bottled water (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JuliaAnn, corvo

      I'm just sayin'.

      "Question authority and the authorities will question you." Now more than ever!
      Republicans have a pre-Magna Carta mindset.

      by armadillo on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:11:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not to be paranoid... (16+ / 0-)

    ...but all the military analysis I've read indicates that Iran has a fair number of cruise missiles salted away in a fairly wide-ranging tunnel/cave system along their coast.

    These papers also imply that Iran's stock of missiles is fairly effective vs. current defensive systems. It seems like they could release a sufficient quantity of munitions to damage, possibly even sink a carrier.

    My recollection is fuzzy, but isn't sinking a carrier one of our redlines for nuclear release? I'm really hoping this doesn't happen, but I think all bets are off if it does.

    So, tomorrow's payday. Should I bother with bills or just blow all $1700 on good scotch?

    "You can trust the government. Just ask a NATIVE AMERICAN!"

    by bluewolverine on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:03:30 PM PDT

  •  By the way (31+ / 0-)

    If you haven't already, read this:

    The End of the "Summer of Diplomacy": Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran, by Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

    Here is a choice bit:

    When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by johnny rotten on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:09:27 PM PDT

  •  there's no way this can be allowed to happen (7+ / 0-)

    We all know Bush is itching to get into Iran. A friend of mine who works for an American Embassy in Europe says that the war plans for Iran have been thrown around for years already.

    The sort of clusterfuck that would occur if we attack Iran would be catastrophic.

    "One of the hardest parts of my job is to try to connect Iraq to the war on terror." George W. Bush, CBS Evening News 9/6/06

    by danger durden on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:12:13 PM PDT

    •  We also know from Sy Hersch that (0+ / 0-)

      Shrub was planning to go into Iran in 2005.  

      My guess is that 2 things stopped them-- the Terri Schiavo thing blew up in their faces in February, and then they pissed everyone off again in September with their handling of Katrina.  

      Now they figure those have been forgotten, the poll numbers are sliding, and this is their last chance.

  •  I'd also like to post a special shout out... (16+ / 0-) my boy Leo Strauss, who has provided a great deal of the philosophical underpinnings applied by the current Administration.

    Thanks for nothing, asshole.

    "You can trust the government. Just ask a NATIVE AMERICAN!"

    by bluewolverine on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:13:48 PM PDT

    •  Leo and his good friend Carl Schmitt both (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snakelass, corvo

      You might like to peruse The Return of Carl Schmitt

      The Bush Crew's entire theory of the "unitary executive" comes directly from Professor Carl Schmitt, the chief legal jurist for the Nazi regime.

      All frames exist within a larger frame. Draw a larger frame around your opponent's frame, and he will appear wrong or insufficient. This is how wizards play.

      by antifa on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:42:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay this is scary... (4+ / 0-)

    However, weren't people saying this back in 2004..."They're gonna attack Iran to deflect Iraq" and "Draft! Draft!" And then the surprise was a stupid Osama video...color me skeptical...

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:14:52 PM PDT

    •  No. (6+ / 0-)

      Do NOT be skeptical.

      This invasion of Iraq has been planned since the early '90s, shortly after Gulf War I.  Dick Cheney privatized the military for this purpose today.  The PNAC plans have been around for quite awhile, taking various forms throughout the 1990s.  Cheney has expressed his desire to invade Iran for a number of years now.

      "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."


      I do not think there is a way to avoid war with Iran, because we have to deal with them to ever leave Iraq.  And our diplomacy is nonexistant with them.

      Remember this:  people were saying that Bush invading Iraq would never happen.  People were skeptical the day Colin Powell was giving his presentation in Feb. 2003 at the UN in New York!

      In all likelihood, they are preparing for another Gulf of Tonkin event.  Just as they had planned on using a plane painted in UN colors to provoke Saddam.

    •  No, the surprise was the stolen election (6+ / 0-)

      They didn't need a surprise then, and they don't need it now.  They are planning a November surprise, which is another Diebolded election.  

      Robert Kennedy jr is already warning again about this in an upcoming Rolling Stone article:

      "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

      by Michigan Paul on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:08:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  War invalidates the polls (8+ / 0-)

        At present, it is looking so bad for the GOP, that they would need a much larger 'anomaly' in the election results. If they get some attacks going with a week to spare, then even if the polling doesn't actually change, or gets worse, the media cartel will still have a narrative to explain how incumbents with low approval beat popular challengers. Like GA 2002, where the story was about the confederate flag and lazy black voters, to explain the astounding poll reversal. All they need is cover, and more Shock and Awe on the American people. Remember what it feels like to wake up after the coup? Grasping for a straw to hang your denial on?

        Washington Nov. 9, 2006
        Experts say the combination of voting delays in (formerly) Democratic precincts, the Bin Laden video and the Commander-in-Chief's decisive strike against nuclear-terrorists in Iranian research facilities accounts for the unexpectedly strong showing of Bush's base in this week's election.  Polling indicates that Values and Security were top concerns among the nation's voters as they reaffirmed the President's mandate and strengthened the GOP's hold on congress.

  •  I hate the media (14+ / 0-)

      Because they think war is sexy.  Because they talk up wars and rumors of wars to get the "big story".  Because they encourage politicians who should know better to go to war when it's not necessary (and have been doing so at least since Hearst).  They don't have to pull triggers, so they can afford to think it's all fun and games.  

      We don't just need to change our politicians -- we need to change many aspects of our society, and the media not least among them.

  •  From the Nation article... (14+ / 0-)

    One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.

    Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration and currently a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, expressed some caution about reports of the carrier deployment, saying, "Remember, carrier groups regularly rotate in and out of that region." But he added, "I do not believe that there should be any elective military action taken against Iran without a separate authorization vote by the Congress. In my view, the 2002 authorization which was used for the invasion of Iraq should not extend to Iran."

    "In order to be respected, authority has got to be respectable." Tom Robbins

    by va dare on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:30:14 PM PDT

  •  I Don't See How... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, mediaprisoner, corvo, greenearth

    ...this helps them at all.

    Imagine, bunkered in in Kabul and Baghdad now headed for Iran?

    Not without a draft and throwing the whole enchilada at the Middle East.

    I just think more folks will be convinced that these muthafuckers are crazier than bedbugs.  I mean besides James Dobson and the other Eschaton  freakazoids, who are they trying to impress?

    Baaaa! Baaaa! :::Chomp!::: Beat Doc!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:34:31 PM PDT

  •  Wait a second... (11+ / 0-)

    The article is written by one Dave Lindorff, and the name of the diarist is dlindorff.  Write an article for a newspaper then say 'hey look everyone what this newspaper is reporting?'.

    This article I think is a bit inflammatory.  First off, the Persian Gulf has been a hotspot for the US Navy for decades because of so much oil going out of it.  Aircraft carriers going in and out of it isn't something out of the ordinary.  The fact that the Persian Gulf is 'just off Iran's western coast' is true, but it's also right off of Iraq's southern coast, and Saudi Arabia's northern coast.  Qatar is right smack dab in the middle of it.  And descriptives like 'bristling with Tomahak cruise missiles' tries to push readers towards conclusions facts don't support also.  What are US navy ships supposed to be bristling with, azaleas?  

    I know this isn't a popular sentiment here, where we have been predicting imminent war with Iran for a few years now (wait! but this time is different!).  Here it is - the US is not going to go to war with Iran.  It can't.  As much as we try to read the tea leaves and see patterns and plots, it's not happening.  If there is ever a war with Iran, I will set up a webcam, link the address somewhere here, and eat my old gym shoes in a live event.

    •  Seriously dude -- not the gym shoes. (18+ / 0-)

      Nobody wants to see such carnage.

      ...I understand where you are coming from, and I believe that -- if logic ruled -- you'd be hard and fast the #1 bet for my dollar.

      These guys are intent on hitting Iran.  They've nearly got all the conditions right, and they'll lose Congress in November -- as well as their unquestioned control of the nation's military (or what's left of it).  This is their last shot.

      And it may be their only chance to test their super-duper Patriot Act powers of election-suspension, stating that the multi-front war dictactes that we not "change horses" and open ourselves up for any signs of weakness.

      Tin-foily?  You betcha -- under any other Administration.  This one's guilty of war crimes, tho, and multiple other unConstitutional (not to mention unconsciounable) acts.  Their very lives are literally on the line now.  There's no going back for them, only forward, ever forward, as fast as they can to avoid the reaper and skip out on paying the piper as long as possible.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:14:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yo Hawk (9+ / 0-)

        If it were any other administration, even the thugs and criminals under Nixon, I'd disagree with you.  But these fuckers -- absolutely stark staring mad.  It's a possibility.

        Hawk, I got your e-mails, but haven't had the opportunity to spend any time going over the material you sent.  I suck.  This weekend, I promise.

        This Far and No Further -- documenting 109 years of conservative thuggery

        by Black Max on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:31:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  but we were saying this same stuff in 04 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreyHawk, Snarcalita


        "President Bush is like all of the characters Dorothy encounters in the Wizard of Oz, all rolled into one - he has no brain, no heart, no courage." -tjf1977

        by mediaprisoner on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:38:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some were. Some weren't. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Bush was trying to push for Iran immediately after Iraq.  I was certain that they were going in June, with July as a fallback, based on some analysis I'd had.  Then the news about the rather significant Pentagon push-back emerged.

          On 9/20/2006 (two days ago, now), I theorized pre-November was likely, but definitely pre-January.

          So, this doesn't surprise me -- it fits the model I'm working with.

          And, again -- I hope I'm wrong.

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:52:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  not really (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I was just watching CHris Matthews, and they had some Republican blow-hards on, and the grand plan hit me.  This is their 'october suprise', this is their political kung-fu judo chop that's going to nail the Democrats.  But it's not war.  Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?  Bush has two very good bad guys - Chavez and Ahmeddadiggityadad - right out of a G.I. Joe comic book - that he can play foil to and wave pictures of and say 'see!  Here's your bad guys that the Democrats would turn the country over to if you let them!'  bin Laden only releases bad quality home movies two times a year or so, these guys show up to the UN and give immature 'Bush has farty pants!' speeches.  The LAST thing Bush would want to do is try to take these guys out of power.  These guys are prime, grade A propaganda fodder.  Posture, pose, do the cowboy swagger, but getting rid of these guys?  No way.

        •  I understand, but still disagree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If Bush's only determination was to retain power for the GOP, then I could see your point.  I'm convinced it's not that simple -- he's been following the PNAC playbook, as adjusted and implemented via Rumsfeld and Cheney through their various stints in the higher eschelons of government, pretty much to the letter.  Hitting Iran (not "invading" inasmuch as "striking at") is part of "the plan" that unfolds.

          So is putting a US-friendly regime in place in South America.

          Holding on to power via GOP enablement is merely a means to these ends, and as such could play second fiddle. Hence, "get your war on" while the getting is good, and use the circumstances that fall out to determine the next course of action -- either the "don't change horses in mid-war" rhetoric buys them a likely retention of power, or the elections are suspended indefinitely (or at least until their candidates regain the high ground) so that the neocon rein of terror can continue unabated, unaccountable to anyone and uninvestigated or obstructed by the strictures of a properly functioning government.

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:05:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Two Words: (4+ / 0-)

      Seymour Hersh.

      Your response?

      "You don't punch down. If you're in my position, you punch upwards." -- Kieth Olbermann

      by MonkeyDog102 on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:23:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hitting Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unterhausen, snakelass, blueoasis

      Right now, the Shias in Iraq are uniting with the Iranians and creating a greater Shiastan.

      It is possible that in the minds of the Bush administation thinkers, knocking off the mullahs in Iran is the next logical step to prevent an even more powerful Islamic theocracy right where they were expecting their jewel of democracy.

      My only contrary thought is under what authority do they think they can do this?

      The AUMF?  

      I believe that there is some political calculus that might make them think that this could help them in November, but that is really just fever dream at this point.

      How will they be able to justify this to the American People?

      Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

      by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:34:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  like when you cut the leg of the table too short (5+ / 0-)

        so the table still rocks.  so you have to cut the other legs off, but you don't get it even.  rinse and repeat.

      •  We can't salvage Iraq. (4+ / 0-)
        But we MUST salvage Afghanistan.

        The alysheba plan for redeployment:

        1) Declare "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq (again, just really SELL it this time)
        2) Leave 30,000 troops in Kurdistan
        3) Send 100,000 troops BACK to Afghanistan
        4) Reconstruct Afghanistan - where they still don't like the Taliban - and give Karzai what we promised him from the establishing a real government.

        Of course, all of this is preceded by "knock the Republicans out of Congress."

        Democrats: For the health, prosperity and security of every single American.

        by alysheba on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 10:10:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bookends (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliaAnn, snakelass, corvo

        I'm more inclined, at this point, to believe that the War with Iran has been the intention this whole time.  Have you actually looked at a map of Iran?  Afghanistan on one side, Iraq on the other, like bookends.

        This would explain something that's been eating at me this whole time...  namely, why the Administration doesn't give a crap about Afghanistan, and why they never wanted to commit enough troops to Iraq.  If they commit too many troops to either place, they won't have enough left for a decent attack on Iran.  It makes sense if their intention is to just use enough troops to control the oil industry in Iraq, and keep both places from degenerating entirely into civil war just long enough to use them as staging grounds for an Iran offensive.

        I'm betting that if they attack Iran we'll suddenly stop hearing any real news about Afghanistan or Iraq, and Iraq will degenerate into civil war pretty quickly as we lose interest and pull our troops out.

        •  i disagree (0+ / 0-)

          This would explain something that's been eating at me this whole time...  namely, why the Administration doesn't give a crap about Afghanistan, and why they never wanted to commit enough troops to Iraq.

          I think a lot of it is incompetence.  It would have made a lot more sense to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq before pulling nonsense with Iran (at least in my mind).  And I don't think there are enough troops left for an attack on Iran.

    •  You're saying it's not OK to get a discussion on? (7+ / 0-)

      My intention here is to let people know about a story that is on the Nation's website, so that it can get aired and discussed.

      •  No. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's just an old political tactic, write a letter to the editor, then turn around then quote it, but leave out the fact you wrote it.

        Granted, your success in the journalism business is much greater than mine, but it's still good form if you are going to self promote, say so.

      •  Here's what you do to fix it (0+ / 0-)

        My intention here is to let people know about a story that is on the Nation's website

        How about "My intention here is to let people know about MY story that is on the Nation's website"


        The Nation magazine's on-line edition has a report detailing early Navy moves aimed at an attack on Iran as early as October 21.

        How about "I have an article, on The Nation magazine' on-line edition, detailing early Navy moves aimed at an attack on Iran as early as October 21".

        No where do you make any effort to let the reader know you are just plugging you're own article.  You want these issues aired and dicussed? Fine, these issues should be discussed. But the way in which the introduction of the diary is written would lead many people to believe that the diarist and the Nation reporter are two different people.

    •  I totally agree, Lindorff is like Lee Siegel (0+ / 0-)

      One, Dave Lindorff should make clear that he is in fact both the author and the diarist. Two, his entire case rests on the fact that one aircraft carrier is going to a place where aircraft carriers normally go.  Is what Dave Lindorff is doing as bad as what Lee Siegel did (here's a quick summary in case you don't know)? No, but it certainly isn't admirable. And I one for think that what Lindorff did with this diary is, on the whole, unscrupulous.

  •  I often wonder if these guys are merely unglued.. (9+ / 0-)

    or whether they're totally batsthit crazy.  I guess I'll find out for sure in about a month.  

    I've long felt that invading Iraq was the worst conscious policy decision by a WH in my lifetime.  It never occurred to me that such a fiasco would be followed by a complete and utter catastrophe in such a short period of time.

    BTW, why isn't this diary on the rec list?  It's a hell of a lot more important issue than Felix's ethnic heritage is.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:27 PM PDT

  •  I don't think we head straight toward a bombing (5+ / 0-)

    campaign.  The public just hasn't been prepped well enough for there to be anything but a WTF if we all of a sudden started bombing Iran.  There's been too much "our focus is on diplomacy" talk from the Administration -- and none of the charade of Congressional war resolutions and UN security council resolutions.

    On the other hand, an attempt at a blockade may very well be in the offing with the hopes that it would provoke Iran into firing on our ships.  The general public probably doesn't view a blockade in the same category as unprovoked bombing (though it is, technically, an act of war).  So that in itself wouldn't cause a huge outcry in the US.  And then if we get "lucky" and have the Iranians fire on our ships, then we can go ahead and bomb Iran with much of the public's backing.  (Or at least enough of the public's backing not to hurt the Republican prospects in November.)  I think I'm reading the US public opinion correctly:  blockade OK, attack on our blockading ships--well, them brown people deserved it.

    They may even think themselves so clever that even if Iranians practice forbearance and do not attack our ships, that the effects of a blockade would squeeze their economy so that there is a popular uprising against the mullahs or (as a consolation prize) the Iranians cry uncle with regard to their nuclear ambitions.

    What maybe ain't so smart is this would possibly result in Sadr's militias marching against US troops in Iraq.  Moreover, the Iranians might take a wait and see attitude to see the reaction in the West to >$100 oil.  I know the Iranian economy is somewhat shaky and probably can't survive long without exports, but maybe a friend like China would tide them over--and we would end up flinching first.

    But, I know, Cuckoo-Bananas can't be bothered with these pessimistic scenarios.

    •  Wrong Country (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, blueoasis

      China has already said it will take a blockade in the Straits as an act of war. And it wasn't talking about Iran blocking it.

      •  what does that mean? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        i mean...china's suddenly defending the strait of hormuz?  i'm sorry but we could seriously fuck china up.  we've got the nukes and bush is crazy.  that's a lot of street cred in the international community; look at kim jung-il.  the problem is that bush's bellicosity has made the world inhospitable for americans.  so far.  eventually, if we start fucking up the right places, people will start to reality on our turf.  not on bush's watch though.

        "President Bush is like all of the characters Dorothy encounters in the Wizard of Oz, all rolled into one - he has no brain, no heart, no courage." -tjf1977

        by mediaprisoner on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:29:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  With all the US Debt that China owns... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, GGAllin

          ..."seriously fuck[ing] China up" would devestate the US economy like nothing else.  China's got us by the short hairs in a lot of ways, I don't think they're too worried about us.

          "Insurrection is an art, and like all arts has its own laws." -- Trotsky

          by Myrrander on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:53:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            China owns so much U.S. debt that they don't even have to fire a shot in anger.
            They only have to call in their markers and it would destroy our economy.
            This, and the fact that Russia is playing nice with China on this issue, is the only real thing holding the neoclowns back.

            •  That would do serious damage (0+ / 0-)

              to the Chinese economy too.   They won't do it.

              •  Cheaper than sending troops (0+ / 0-)

                The Chinese are playing the long game.  Their regime can withstand any plausible contraction cauised by unloading dollars -- what they would buy with them is another question.  It would push the Euro through the ceiling, which is not something the ECB wants to see or would accommodate.  Alternatively, they buy gold.  It's not an easy operation.  But on the other hand, were they simply to dump a billion dollars or so of US Treasuries on the market (that's how the dollars are held) US interest rates would go through the ceiling and I mean the god-almighty ceiling.  That's how they would do it.

                As to the long game, the Chinese understand very well that they are the ultimate target of this Gulf adventure. They will do what it takes to make sure it fails, and they will do it in the least costly way possible.  Dumping US Treasuries is surely the least costly way.

        •  Well China (0+ / 0-)

          is extremely scared of what the Chinese people would do if they don't get their oil, so I doubt they would let America attack Iran for that reason alone.

          But they are also aware that they were vunerable to America by using two Straits that were easily cut off, so they have removed one from equation and are ready to defend the other and I don't think America having nukes fazes them much. After all tit for tat and all that.

          They have also built up a pile of bases in that area.

      •  This is what I fear (0+ / 0-)

        that this Iran thing could start WWIII.  I mean with nukes and navies and global mobilization of every country in the world.  I can't believe even Bush is doing this.

        Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."

        by Event Horizon on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:32:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Good analysis (0+ / 0-)

      One point tho...about the emphasis on diplomacy with Iran  - simultaneous with the demonizing of that country...

      Isn't this what they did before bombing the hell out of Iraq?  Go to the U.N., pretend to make a case for diplomacy...then, throw up their hands in despair at U.N. impotence and use that point to legitimize an unprovoked war on Iraq?

      Nothing these dumb shits do makes any sense.  

  •  This scenario also diaried--- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner, GreyHawk

    ...and largely ignored or dismissed, here.

  •  Wake Up! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner, epppie

    This is all a dream! Tomorrow will be sunny and clear.

  •  The gang that could never learn straight (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, epppie
  •  You have got to be less ironic! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max, mediaprisoner, blueoasis

    According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet...

    Way too ironic...

    If you dance with the devil, then you haven't got a clue; 'Cause you think you'll change the devil, but the devil changes you. - illyia

    by illyia on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:27:25 PM PDT

  •  If this is true (11+ / 0-)

    and this is a big fat fucking if, it's possibly the worst idea that has ever come out of Rove's ever-more-fevered brain.  Any such invasion will make the Iraqi occupation look like a Boy Scout Jamboree.  As others have noted, the Iranians will make it virtually impossible to ship oil through the straits.  Their military is large, well-trained and well-blooded, and will be fighting on their home ground.  Our already-overstrained military will have to fight tooth and nail for every centimeter of ground.  And unlike every opponent we've faced since Vietnam, Iran has a fairly strong air force -- no way to use unchallenged air power to soften up the ground defenses.

    The only way to kick Iran's ass in a military sense, without extreme bloodshed and thousands of coffins being shipped home within a matter of hours, is to go nuclear, and that is a bad, bad idea, not only politically but in every sense of the word.  Even most Republicans not named Cheney (and Bush, at least the current WH occupant), will recognize this as an insane idea.

    If they want another war, more likely it will be a quick reprise of Grenada -- an invasion of some small, defenseless country that we can slap around like Gorilla Monsoon kicking a chihuahua.  The entire idea is mad.  But what is this administration if not clinically insane?  I'd dismiss it out of hand if we didn't already know this administration is composed of madmen who ought to be straitjacketed and given electroshock.  Increase the level of desperation in Washington over the immiment ass-kicking the Dems are likely to give the Rethugs and it becomes a possibility.

    But I still think not.  More likely we get a massive wave of vote fraud and fuckery that "wins" Congress for the Rethugs one more time.

    This Far and No Further -- documenting 109 years of conservative thuggery

    by Black Max on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:28:39 PM PDT

    •  Hope you are right. (0+ / 0-)

      But as you say,

      what is this administration if not clinically insane?

      It's probably hanging in a balance between the lunatics who want this so bad they can taste it, and insiders who don't want to be part of snuffing out American democracy. The scary part is not knowing who's got the upper hand from one moment to the next.

      This space intentionally left blank.

      by MattK D1 on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:43:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What insiders? (3+ / 0-)

        "It's probably hanging in a balance between the lunatics who want this so bad they can taste it, and insiders who don't want to be part of snuffing out American democracy"

        I'm sorry, but I just don't believe there are any decent people in the Bush Administration, insiders or not, that care about American democracy, much less about snuffing it up.  Come on people, wake up.  These people are evil, they're not stupid, because they have mopped the floor with us the past six years.  Even when we win, they have made us lose, and now Nancy Pelosi is defending "our leader" from attacks from the "thug" Chavez.

        Leave it to Democrats, get screwed, bend over, and ask for more.

        "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

        by Michigan Paul on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:14:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  amen brother (0+ / 0-)

          not that our votes count anyway.  we don't even get to pick which rich corporate shill we want representing us!

          "President Bush is like all of the characters Dorothy encounters in the Wizard of Oz, all rolled into one - he has no brain, no heart, no courage." -tjf1977

          by mediaprisoner on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:34:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It isn't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, mediaprisoner

      Just isn't. Time for bed. And don't put the tinfoil hat near the door where you stepped on it when you got up to take a leak.

      Walking. It's the new driving.

      by Batfish on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:27:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  rove was supposedly against the iran war (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hoplite9, DianeNYS, blueoasis

      according to a semi-recent article somewhere.  i'd say it has cheney/perle fingerprints on it.  they think they're doing the world a service because the world, to them, only consists of a handful of extremely wealthy white republican men.

      "President Bush is like all of the characters Dorothy encounters in the Wizard of Oz, all rolled into one - he has no brain, no heart, no courage." -tjf1977

      by mediaprisoner on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:32:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hard to believe, except in a purely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        political sense.  Rove is like Cheney -- blood, gore, and explosions are the only way they can pop a woody.    Just imagine how much "mileage" Cheney got out of bloodying up his friend Harry with that shotgun blast.  Lynne probably didn't get any rest for a week.

        This Far and No Further -- documenting 109 years of conservative thuggery

        by Black Max on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:33:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a side comment, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kimberley, shpilk, AndrewOG

          if I ever had any thoughts towards political office, that last post just gave whatever opposition I would have enough ammo to blast me into single digits.  Oh well.

          This Far and No Further -- documenting 109 years of conservative thuggery

          by Black Max on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:35:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can't tell you how many times (0+ / 0-)

            I've thought the same thing about so many of my posts.

            Eh, what do I need to become a politician for anyway? I've got enough vices.

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

            by Kimberley on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:20:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think about that, too (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Black Max

            And you know what? Screw it. If I ever get elected, I will not disavow a word I've said, nor the tone I said it in. We could use a few politicians who weren't entirely chickenshit. If Bush can get elected after drinking a river of booze and snorting cocaine and prancing around as a cheerleader and a n'er do well ... shit, what do we have to be afraid of?

            "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

            by JuliaAnn on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:39:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  hmmmm, i just read your response - funny how (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kimberley, blueoasis, ca democrat

      it mirrors the one i just wrote a few posts above.

      when will america realize she is being lead down the path to destruction by a mad man... no, a GROUP of madmen!

      this IS insane - and america is beginning to recognize that insanity!

      let's pray for overwhelming turnout - far beyond the republican estimates - for november.

      we need to start posing the question:  can america survive another war?  will war with iran economically bankrupt the country?  will the middle class be crushed if we are pushed by our electorate into preemptively attacking a country that is not threatening us?

      we need to start asking these questions NOW - in dollars and sense terms... that people will hear!

      i know, been talking to a very conservative friend and she is beginning to hear the pain of the empty coffers and the reasons WHY those coffers are running dry!  economics - not ideology - that is the key to showing the insanity and to winning elections!

    •  One problem (0+ / 0-)

      we don't even have enough spare troops to attack Haiti. Or equipment.

      Kinda hard to do those things when you've shot your wad on Iraq.

    •  Don't kid yourself. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      None of the Rethugs in Congress, and maybe half of the Democrats, would as much as bat an eyelash if we nuked Iran.

  •  Bush and what army?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner, ca democrat

    That's the question my spouse always asks when this kind of talk comes up.  

    As for the question of whether or not the military would go along, I'm not sure which would be worse for our nation: that they would follow orders off the cliff, or that they would set a shocking new precedent by defying the civilian "leadership" or our nation.  Talk about a lose/lose situation!

    •  not the Army (5+ / 0-)

      the Air Force has been seriously compromised with coolaide drinkers.  That's the only plan they have left, and that's what they would go with.

      •  and, besides, they really BELIEVE that they can (4+ / 0-)

        win with an "air war" - just like israel did in lebanon... oh... oops...

      •  Air only (0+ / 0-)

        means captured downed pilots, hostages, oh shit, here we go again...

      •  It appears the Navy is ready to assist as well (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        unterhausen, kidneystones

        They must not have enough sailors biting on the Blue to Green program. Are our military leaders insane? Why are these folks telling this man "yeah, we can make this work." It is insane to think the military can sustain Afghanistan,Iran, and Iraq while still maintaining readiness to mount a defense. Insane.

        •  Military love to fight. Can Do!! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          unterhausen, cwaltz

          That's just the nature of the beast.

          Once the war starts all the military folks will want to do is win.

          And if the US can't beat Iran, then we're all in really, really deep shit.

          The problem is Bush fucks up everything he touches.

          So the chances of him screwing up an attack on Iran are about 100%.

          Feel safer?

          •  That's not true (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            unterhausen, kidneystones

            I was military for 11 years. I didn't look forward to fighting. Fighting meant that I or my husband would possibly be away from our family. It meant that we might be placed in harm's way. Most of the leaders are deeply aware that during war the sacrifice becomes much greater for soldiers and sailors. What I don't understand is why these officers are not screaming from the rooftops that this level of commitment from the military is unsustainable long term and the Middle East is definitely a long term project. I understand why Bush doesn't understand it( I mean he was shocked that there were black people in Brazil)but why aren't our military leaders speaking out?

            •  I respect your service and thank you for it. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              And on an individual level, you could be right. I was referring to military culture.

              And I don't have the contacts in the military I used to.

              Perhaps, things have changed.

              The folks I know didn't want to go, but pretty quick everybody got with "the Mission comes first program".

              Too dangerous not to.

              Not true?

              •  Once a decision has been made (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You just do what you need to do to get the mission accomplished. It isn't about whether you agree or disagree once the commitment has been made because hesitating to act out of some sort of belief that leadership is wrong can get you or your fellow soldiers killed. Out in the field there is no room for veering away from mission but that doesn't necessarily mean that you agree it just means that you recognize the order as legal.

                However, this is before the actual commitment has been made and before actual engagement so the upper military echelon ought to be screaming from the rafters "unsustainable."

                •  A logistical impossibility is how I put it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Either locals voluntarily make life easy for the occupier or every single item has to be shipped in.

                  I'm afraid, however, that there are plenty within the military and among Dems who'd be all too happy to see Iran get hit hard.

                  •  Those folks who think this is a good idea are (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    foolish and aren't paying attention. Financially we are going through billions we don't have. Our military is already stretched to the point that we are using reserves and guard and it gets thinner each time they put another mission in front of them. Couple that with a look at the history of the Middle East region and you have got a losing proposition.

                    I am so relieved that my husband and I left early enough that we never got stuck under the leadership of these folks and never will.

            •  it's not the lower ranks (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse, cwaltz

              it's the REMF's that want to fight.  In particular, the Air Force has been shown to be particularly worthless in Iraq.  Sure they blew a batch of stuff up, but it wasn't like Desert Storm where the air attack really won the war, and the foot soldiers only cleaned up the stragglers.  

              The Air Force is buying incredibly expensive planes, they use up a large percentage of the military budget, and they are contributing very little to our two major conflicts.  The brass is shaking in their boots.  

              •  Military and money (0+ / 0-)

                You'd figure they'd recognize that a capitalist country would expect value for dollars spent. Especially folks like GW, who strike me as very linear. I don't see GW as able to understand that buying the bright shiny toys doesn't necessarily mean you have to use them.

                God, is it 2008 yet? I am afraid by the time his term is over we are going to have one big cluster to clean up.

  •  This just isn't going to happen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnnygunn, mediaprisoner

    I just don't see it. I know Dennis Kucinich was on the House floor making clear that he sees a groundwork being laid politically -- he wanted to be clear his support for a resolution decrying Iranian treatment of the Ba'hai in no way was support for action against Iran. I don't see it. It may be that the Administration is trying to seem batshit crazy and rattle a few sabers for effect, but they're along way from attacking Iran.

    "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

    by FischFry on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:33:52 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, but this is NEVER going to happen (7+ / 0-)

    The minute Chimpy attacks Iran, oil shoots right back over $70/barrel, and gas prices back to $3/gallon, total suicide.

    •  But this could be a November surprise (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      after they suckered the stupid rednecks into buying this.

    •  Exactly my thought (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      iCaroline, Leap Year, ca democrat

      anything that sends the price of gas back to $3 is political suicide, I think, at least once the initial shock is over.  But if this is timed to happen right before the elections, a bunch of people could get nervous about changing ships again (even though this ship has been sinking for a long time), and that may outweigh the gas price increase in the short-term.

      "[Our enemies] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -George W Bush

      by Tarindel on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:52:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  uh, not really - we've been over $3.50 for (6+ / 0-)

      an eternity in ca. and, besides - he's repaying the oil boys, remember?

      haven't you realized yet that bushco doesn't GIVE a rat's ass what happens to america - as long as he gets to play king for a bit longer.  he re-writes history AND the present as he goes along.

      trying to make sense out of nonsense is the mistake of sane people.  bush is NOT sane!  that is what i've been trying to pull to the surface and just realized it!

      bush isn't stupid, he isn't dumb - he if flat out crazy - and when you are trying to make sense out of crazy, all you do is drive yourself insane!

      looking for logic in illogic never works - nothing this man has ever done is sensical - he is not working with a full deck, but we sane ones keep trying to find logic where there is none - we keep trying to "understand" that which has no meaning.

      we need to focus on the mental illness instead of the failed policies - what would drive this man to push this nation into failed wars and failed policies yet espouse their glowing successes!

      iran?  a sane mind says absolutely no way!  it would be suicide.

      bush is not sane.

      scared now?  i am!

    •  Strategic Petroleum Reserve n/t (0+ / 0-)

      The War On Terra will be won when Republicans are removed from power

      by shpilk on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:25:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not $70/barrel but $100+, easily (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Let's all start imagining what happens to our economy when gas prices hit $5/gallon.

    •  But... (0+ / 0-)

      If we engineer an Iranian threat to the Straits of Hormuz, then the gas prices and other economic harm appears to be the fault of Iranian belligerence. That's when you attack them, and you don't get the blame for the hell at home. It's just hunker down, folks, and think of our troops out there dying to bring that oil price back down.

      Cry, the beloved country, these things are not yet at an end. - Alan Paton

      by rcbowman on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:04:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NY Times has a piece on stretched Army (6+ / 0-)

    and the need for the National Guard to play a bigger role in overseas deployments. Yea, it makes no sense, to start another war now, but attacking Iraq, ordering torture of detainees, and abandoning the search for Bin Ladin make no sense either.  That's why I am worried.

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:38:34 PM PDT

  •  Not really much of a surprise, is it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    todd in salt lake, epppie

    I mean they've only been talking about Iran all year.  I think it's gonna backfire on their ass... I think Americans are tired of the neo-con's half baked and deadly foreign adventures.

    •  Doesn't matter, this will never happen in October (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IndyScott, johnnygunn, Tarindel, epppie

      before the election.  That woudld cause oil prices to skyrocket and would mean certain defeat for the GOPs.  An attack on Iran is something they would wait till after the Election for.

      •  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve will absorb 120 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        days of demand .. I've already offered up I suspect it's already been compromised, and the facts of it being tapped are being withheld in the name of "national security".

        Of course, tin foil is required for that one .. but then again, do you trust anything from the Bush administration?

        The War On Terra will be won when Republicans are removed from power

        by shpilk on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:22:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  tin foil hat prediction... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnnygunn, mediaprisoner, Brian B

    We're moving all these ships towards Iran.  If a US ship were to be hit by a missle from 'Iran', it's all over.

    An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

    by Alter Ego Manifesto on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:48:12 PM PDT

  •  What a God Damned Shame it is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Colbert made a funny (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SensibleShoes, Yamara, Tao, epppie

    He interviewed the Democratic challenger in the NJ-5th. He kept asking questions about whether the candidate wanted to withdraw our troops for Iran -- his premise was that the interview would run after we invaded Iran, so the candidate should play along. It was pretty clever stuff.

    "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

    by FischFry on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:53:41 PM PDT

  •  Western Coast?? (4+ / 0-)

    Iran has a southern coast on the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman - plus a northern coast on the Caspian Sea - but I'm hard pressed to find a western coast along the Iraqi and Turkish borders.  In fact, the mountains are pretty high - like Mt. Ararat.

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    There are some southwest orientations of the southern coast of Iran - but a quick look at the map shows that the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman form Iran's southern boundary.

    Geographical accuracy is important when claims of this nature are being made.  I certainly believe that Cheney and his puppet, Dubya, are capable of anything come October - but it has to be very, very thoroughly demonstrated lest progressives are all saddled with tin hats.

    I agree with Jim Webb that this may actually be a carrier rotation.  Remember, the Eisenhower is one of our "older" carriers. There has been a carrier task force in the Persian Gulf ever since the invasion of Iraq with multiple carriers.  How many?  How has this number fluctuated?  Obviously the Navy isn't going to release all of its deployment information, but there are ways to determine whether or not the Persian Gulf task force is being rotated or significantly strenghtened. If the Eisenhower was ready and another carrier has had a long deployment - I suspect that it is simply a rotation.

    •  You slice the cake pretty fine... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What's so crazy about talking about Iran's "western" coast?  I agree that it might be more proper to call it a southern coast, but look at the Persian Gulf.  Is it so unreasonable to say that the PG runs north/south?      Wouldn't you agree that Saudi Arabia is "west" of Iran?   And if the PG does run north/south, what's on its eastern side?  Iran's "western" coast.

      There are lots of reasons to think that the PNAC, neo-cons, whatever-ya-wanna-call'ems are fascist war-mongering idiots, but IMHO this isn't one of them.

      Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

      by Pondite on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:17:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i consider the persian gulf (0+ / 0-)

        the western coast.  the gulf of oman is clearly the eastern coast.  i feel ill.

        "President Bush is like all of the characters Dorothy encounters in the Wizard of Oz, all rolled into one - he has no brain, no heart, no courage." -tjf1977

        by mediaprisoner on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:20:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody - (0+ / 0-)

        Refers to the "western coast" of Iran.
        Google it - the phrases - "Iran's southern coast" vs "Iran's western coast" - -
        If the author is going to make extremely serious claims,
        then he had better be very, very accurate.

        •  look, I don't disagree, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          since I don't really know anything about the subject!  But your comment had the air of "disproving" the diary, on the grounds that the diarist didn't know the conventions for referring to Iran's various borders, most of which run at 45-degree angles to n/s e/w lines.  I don't think the diarist is correct, but I don't think you disproved his points either...

          Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

          by Pondite on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:29:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Minesweepers - not Carries - the Key (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, redcardphreek, Near Vanna

      Sending the USS Eisenhower doesn't really affect the strike capability of the task forces being assembled off Iran.  Ground-based air power will provide the bulk of the offensive capability of any air strikes on Iran, by a large margin.

      No, the key to the story are those four dull anti-mine warfare ships being sent to the Strait of Hormuz.  They would be needed to try to keep the Strait open after Iran's only means of retaliation would be to mine the Strait.  Iran can use mining as their only military resource if their anti-shipping missile batteries have all been pounded into rubble, which means a preventive war air strike.  

      You don't need the minesweepers and minelayers if the Iranians aren't laying mines.  The Iranians wouldn't mine the Strait and blockade if they themselves were also shipping petroleum through the Strait.  Therefore, they're mining the Strait indicates that they have no interest in keeping the Strait open.  Only an air attack on Iranian assets generates that type of response.  Only knowing that Iranians won't have their anti-shipping missiles available prompts a commander to send so many of these types of ships to that one location and the only way they don't have their anti-shipping missiles available is if their destroyed by air strikes.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:28:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please excuse me, but... (0+ / 0-)

      I think you might be nitpicking a little too much with regards to whether or not Iran has a "western" coast.  The Persian Gulf could easily be described as being to the west of a large part of Iran.

      •  Sloppy - - (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's sloppy geography.
        I make two points.
        From sloppy geography, I suggest sloppy analysis as well.
        It may be a major military move, but it may simply be a rotation.
        What does the author offer to prove the former?
        It's not like I don't believe that the current batch of criminals in the White House are capable of doing this - it's just that this article doesn't carry the weight.

        •  It's okay, johnnygunn (0+ / 0-)

          Luckily, the diarist is a concerned American, not a geography teacher. Whew, glad that's over.

          "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

          by JuliaAnn on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:43:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's okay, JuliaAnn - - (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Event Horizon

            Luckily when someone makes claims of impending war, he doesn't have to know basic geography.  

            I say "basic" because never before have I ever seen a reference to Iran's "west coast" - - if the geography is sketchy, then the logic may be questionable, too.  You can't make claims about fleet deployments halfway around the world if you don't know where in the world those places happen to be.

        •  I was thinking this too (0+ / 0-)

          It is probably a rotation of carriers

    •  The Ike has just finished (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A four year refurbish last year.

  •  Now I know Bush could care less (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spam Spam Bacon Spam, epppie

    but doesn't Congress need another new war resolution if we were to invade or try another Shock and Awe performance?  The last WR was specifically for Iraq.

    And how likely will Congress go along with a new one, for another country, in less than 47 days?

    And...AND, where are the hell are the troops coming from?  How are we going to pay for this?  I don't think only liberals will be asking these questions.

    •  The last WR was specifically for Iraq .... (7+ / 0-)

      The last WR was to strike at "those who struck us on September 11th"
      Read it.
      That's what it said.
      That was a LIE.
      It has ALL been LIES.
      These fuckers don't care.
      No one holds them accountable.
      So why do they care?

      Face it we're fucked.

      •  I did read it, did you? (7+ / 0-)

        Nowhere does it say "those who struck us on September 11th".  The closest is this:

        Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

        Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

        The beginning sentence of the Joint Resolution:

        To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

        So, I ask again, don't we need another resolution specifically against Iran, and even if Congress was stupid enough to give one, is there enough time before election day?

        The ONLY way I can see Bush doing this, would be by by-passing Congress completely.  I'm not sure how well that pill would be swallowed.

        •  not needed. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          adigal, corvo, Kdoug, epppie

          I mean, technically and theoretically perhaps.  But we are talking about actuality.  We are talking Bush, Cheney, and Rove here.  We are talking a rubber-stamp Congress.

          What will happen is they will use sophism and squirm their way out of it by claiming it is part of the War on Terra.  And just like they merged Iraq and al-Qaeda in the minds of many Americans, they will merge these wars.

          If Congress hasn't stopped this fascistic shit parade yet, they aren't going to.  Why start following the law now?

          •  Call me an optimist (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mmacdDE, epppie

            or unreasonably naive, but I just don't think this will be the October Surprise.  Just not enough time to walk run Congress, and Americans, through the rest of the drum-beating before the launch.

            My scenario is a bin Laden gotcha.

            •  I agree with you but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              not because of optimism. It's just that this scenario is way more likely to backfire and turn congress over to Democratic control. The Bushies have already proved they can't run the war -- make that two wars, including Afghanistan -- they've got; what makes you think they'd have an efficient and effective strategy for antoher one?

              I don't believe the bin Laden scenario either because it's been trotted around so long I think it'd be ineffective, much as raising the terror alert level to red for the first time in July had no effect on Bush's approval at all. Also, I think it's become almost a boogieman we've created to scare ourselves with how all-powerful they are when in reality, we should be looking at how we can make the "finding bin Laden" scenario blow up in their face if they try to pull it. That's an easy matter: a. what took so long and b. what changes? Do we get to leave Iraq now? No? Then it makes no more difference that the last dozen "no. 2 al qaeda" guys they've caught.

              •  I actually thought they'd try that (0+ / 0-)

                in 2004, but the best they got was a video tape, which apparently was good enough (not incl the Ohio crime).

                While all of us here would ask those obvious questions (about a bin Laden capture), I'm not sure many other Americans would.  They'd probably equate a capture with the overall WoT, and say "SEE?  He IS keeping us safe."  

                But, I agree with all your premises, an attack on Iran would seal the Republican coffin. To many Americans it would be like the tax break and refunds he gave away while we were just starting a war.

                While I always had my misgivings about Bush, that was when I realized he was certifiably nuts.

          •  If Bush has to ask permission to attack Iran ... (0+ / 0-)

            the terrorists have won!

      •  I Would Hazard a Guess (0+ / 0-)
        That if they were to try this--and I really don't see how they can--that at least they would be fucked before we would be.

        If you know what I mean.  E.g., above, as well.

        It ain't going to happen.  It will be a total disaster.

    •  Bush thinks he has authorization for a terror war (9+ / 0-)

      He doesn't think he needs a new authorization to go to war against Iran, because by making the case that the Iranian government is a sponsor of terror, he can say it's part of the war on terror and he claims that the 2001 (not 2002) Authorization to Use Military Force (which Congress actually passed to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan and the pursuit of Osama) was rather an authorization for a never-ending war on terror. Ergo, he thinks he can just attack anywhere anytime that he sees signs of terrorist sponsorship.

  •  good way to get the troops out of Iraq... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AllisonInSeattle, GreyHawk

    send them into Iran.

    Genius move if you're Niccolo Machiavelli.

    I can also be found here, rambling incoherently.

    by BullitNutz on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:11:41 PM PDT

  •  Those are Minesweepers, Not Minelayers (10+ / 0-)

    I believe Rummy's orders to send the two minesweepers and two minelayers confirms their decision to attack Iran.  The rushed sailing date of October 1st indicates that they want the anti-mine warfare vessels at the Strait of Hormuz by no later than October 22nd.  That happens to be the date for the new moon in October, the optimal date for an air attack on Iran from the Air Force's point of view.  No moon in the night sky reduces the possibllity that stealth and EW-defended aircraft will be detected by visually.

    They need the anti-mine warfare vessels because we can assume the air attack will target the Iranian anti-shipping missiles along the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf during the initial strikes.  Iran's only potential for retaliation would be to mine the Strait and blockade shipping through the Strait. Certainly, they would try to cause maritime insurance rates to rise so high that no tanker captain would dare risk sailing through the Strait.  The anti-mine warfare ships are there to persuade the commercial fleet that no blockade has been imposed or is even possible.

    The United States Navy has only about six of each of these types of ships.  Sending two of each to the Strait of Hormuz is a tremendous allocation of resources and demonstrates the commitment to whatever mission is being planned.  Only support for an attack justifies such an allocation.  

    Timing will be critical.  Too soon and the electorate learns how counterproductive the attack might be.  that means it can't occur more than ten days before the election (October 27th or earlier).  Too late and it looks too politically partisan (November 5th and after).  Somehow November 2nd (the Day of the Dead) has a nice ring to it.  Of course, Eid Al Fitr falls on October 23rd this year too.  Takes youse pick.

    "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

    by PrahaPartizan on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:12:43 PM PDT

  •  I wish I could put money against this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, GenXWho, Buddha Hat

    There are about 1 million reasons why this won't happen. I almost think that the left is hoping for war with Iran. But there are so many military, political and economic reasons why this is impossible. I have railed against this fantasist thinking before, but this same goofy idea keeps coming back again and again. What should I do? Fashion a wooden stake?

    Take it to the bank, folks. No attack on Iran. None. Nada. Zip. And if, by some amazing, colossal freak of political craziness it did happen, the Nation would not be the first to break the news! Give me a fucking break.

    Walking. It's the new driving.

    by Batfish on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:24:19 PM PDT

    •  Answer One Question (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AllisonInSeattle, corvo, epppie

      If you are so certain, please answer one question for me.  Why the hurried deployment of the four anti-mine warfare vessels?  We have only about six of each type of these ships in the US Navy.  We're sending a third of our anti-mine warfare capability to the Strait of Hormuz on a forced march.  Why?  Why so rushed?  Why now, just before the election, of all times?

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:34:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  more from The Nation: "Deja vu on Iran?" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      methodishca, epppie

      Their lead editorial in the same issue, on-line here.

      However, please keep in mind: this is America. The Nation is a publication of the left. Who in "mainstream, heartland" America pays any attention to the left?

      "It's only in books that the officers of the detective force are superior to the weakness of making a mistake." (Wilkie Collins, The Moonstone)

      by chingchongchinaman on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 10:42:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  heard this one before (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, maren a, epppie

      on the eve of Iraq invasion, I have this exact conversation.

      •  The main differences being (0+ / 0-)
        1. We did not already have the majority of our armed forces tied up in a losing battle.
        1. The American public was not deeply skeptical about Bush as a "war president."
        1. We knew we could beat paper tiger Iraq. Iran is not nearly so easy a target and the military is well aware of this.
    •  I agree .. if we were talking about normal, sane (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      people .. but we are not.

      Our navy is prepared at a certain to deal with threats; I have some inside information about how sophisticated they have gotten, and it's quite impressive. However, I think that a hot shooting war in the Gulf will stil turn out badly for our people in the water. Very badly.

      No, I think that the same idiots that convinced Bush about Shock and Awe are at it again, this time with watersports. I can corroborate some of the information in the Nation's article.

      There's movement, that's for sure; and they are prepared, too. This has been in the works for nearly a year.

      The War On Terra will be won when Republicans are removed from power

      by shpilk on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:19:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • do make an emphatic statement. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Perhaps you're working on an argument with which to back it up. You don't have to give all million reasons...

    •  We have already heard that the Generals (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      beat back an attempt to plan an attack on Iran already - what makes you think they have given up their plan??

      The only reason I think it won't happen is because oil will go through the roof, and that will make the republicans lose Congress.  I do agree that the "capture" of bin Laden is much more likely.

      My file on Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 06:46:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The "Generals" haven't stopped jack shit yet (0+ / 0-)

        Why should we expect rational leadership from the military under this administration?   Either the generals go along to get along or go public and get ignored or get marginalized with a fat pension.  My impression is that the Pentagon has never been more denuded and impotent, just like every other branch of our government.

    •  Me too! (0+ / 0-)

      I just want some way of cataloguing all the hysterical posts about the supposedly imminent war so I can have a great "I told you so" moment the day after the election.

  •  Straussian creative destruction fantasies (6+ / 0-)

    Biblical "prophecy" and electoral panic.  It's the perfect storm.

    The fact that they have rushed the Eisenhower's rest and refit is a pretty bad sign.  If the Gulf is crowded with US naval forces, this will - probably correctly - be viewed as an existential threat by the Iranians.  The busheviks want WWIII, folks. They really, really want it... And this is their last shot. - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:35:12 PM PDT

  •  I think the military is leaking this (8+ / 0-)

    so they are not put in the position of haveing to pull a coup. They want us to stop this before they have to.

    Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

    by McGirk on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:36:14 PM PDT

  •  Since I like to taunt the troll warriors. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk, epppie

    I just feel the need to point out one little fact that again cuts across the grain here.

    Clinton did almost precisely this when dealing with N. Korea in almost precisely the same situation. Clinton threw down against N. Korea and negotiated them to a reasonable compromise. What was important about sending the fleet was making it just public enough that the N. Koreans knew it was coming.

    One major difference was that N. Korea had the material whereas Iran doesn't. But aside from that, N. Korean leadership was just as nutty as Iran's is today - but N. Korea was far more powerful than Iran is.

    My thinking is that this administration is taking Clinton's playbook and hoping to deliver a negotiated deal with Iran before the election rather than an attack.

    -6.00, -7.03
    "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

    by johnsonwax on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:39:13 PM PDT

    •  I sure hope you're right, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bellatrys, GreyHawk, DSPS owl, epppie

      but given what I know about the neocons and PNAC, and given that the buildup prior to the Iraq war wasn't a bluff, I'm afraid I have to at least consider this as a credible idea (though it's of course not a certainty).

      I have yet to see this president back down on a threat, and I sure can't see him backing down right before an election.  If this were Clinton rather than Bush doing this, I might have more confidence that you're right.

      •  Well, I think there are 4 possible scenarios (5+ / 0-)
        1. What we all fear. Pre-emptive air strike against Iranian nuclear sites. Port blockade. Bad shit.
        1. What I described. Show of force to a negotiated non-proliferation treaty.
        1. Ramp up tensions through the election. Show of force with no attempt to talk to Iran. Force the public to back down by voting Dem. Bush isn't the only one who doesn't back down on a threat.
        1. Gulf of Tonkin.

        Only #2 and #4 work. #1 and we're just fucked - for a long-ass time. Generation at least. #3 will eventually unravel for them. 2008 will be a disaster if there's no plan past October. #4 probably would work - there are too many people who simply couldn't accept it except for what it appeared to be. They desperately need to be led and can't turn against Bush no matter what. The left would absolutely explode, though. Their immediate conclusion would be that this was staged. Not just here at Kos but in Congress as well. I'd seriously worry about civil unrest with that move.

        (Bush backed down with N. Korea, BTW - never even showed up for that game. Major, major fuckup.)

        -6.00, -7.03
        "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

        by johnsonwax on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 10:31:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've been waiting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          huskerly, epppie

          for some civil unrest for years now!

          Bring it on.

          The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. - Henry Wallace V.P. 1941-45

          by BoxerRebellion on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 10:47:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not even showing up for North Korea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and not talking to Syria, Iran, etc., isn't quite the same thing as putting on a show of force then backing down.

          Civil unrest?  Maybe.  My final fallback plan may be leaving the country, but that doesn't fix anything except my own having to live with being a part of this, in fact if I and other opposition are driven away that only helps them.

          Sy Hersh reported well over a year ago, also covered by  Democracy Now that Bush may be preparing for military action against Iran.  So far, that hasn't come to pass. Maybe that was an example of a conspiracy theory, or maybe he's just slow in unfolding his plans for Iran due to being bogged down in Iraq.  I can't be sure.

        •  i think our Navy is more vulnerable to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          low tech suicide missions, than high tech missiles; making thousands of Iranians in small boats in the Strait of Hormuz a very dangerous proposition..

          Without a Navy there can be no Air Force.  Without a sea supply link to Iraq ...

          How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?

          by ca democrat on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:58:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Fifth option (0+ / 0-)

          Explored in one of the posts above.... blockade Iran and provoke them into an attack on us so that we just naturally have to retaliate.  

          Outside of this administration's weak piddling base, there are billions of people in the world who would abhor any U.S. military action against Iran.  You're right: The left would explode and, if by chance we still have any allies left, we'd lose them. On the other hand, when has that ever deterred these narcississtic deluded morons?

    •  Iran is far more powerful than North Korea (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heronymous Cowherd, DSPS owl

      in the sense that they can effect their neighbors.

      North Korea is/was a stronger military threat, but to use that force would be suicide, and even Kim Jung-Il knows that.

      Iran has porous borders on all sides, and can wreak havoc at will, anywhere and any time it wants to.

      Bush is not Clinto, Bush doesn't understand even the most basic aspects of diplomacy. With Powell and Armitage gone from State, they have got NO ONE who even has the slighest grasp of what brinkmanship involves, other than issuing the launch order.

      The War On Terra will be won when Republicans are removed from power

      by shpilk on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:14:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good point, however... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maren a

      the reason that Clinton's plan worked was he had the honorable and most effective Jimmy Carter working for him and meeting with Kim Jong the elder.  Who does Bush have that can handle such delicate talks?  No one, that's who.

  •  Military Dictatorship (8+ / 0-)

    Essentially, this country has devolved into a military dictatorship, with one little despot willing the military to do anything, anywhere at anytime.

    LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

    by letsfight on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:45:47 PM PDT

  •  Wonderful (not), Iran gets their 9/11 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, GreyHawk, danmac, epppie

    That is to say, thanks to our out-of-control whack-job leader, their own whack-job leader gets his own unifying rallying point to get everyone in Iran to forget all the f--k-ups that Ahmadinejad is presiding over there, like this.  They just don't get that 9/11 here made people rally together and momentarily forget their differences, and us bombing Iran will have the same effect there.

    Read this for additional insights, including this conclusion that the Bushistas don't get (emphasis mine):

    Iran is a rich country, poorly run. Slowly but surely its people are demanding and obtaining change. Iran does seem destined once again to be a great regional power, but that destiny is likely to be attained despite its religious leadership - and despite the Bush administration's counter-productive bullying.

    Ahmadinejad, the articulate champion of Iran's national rights, is a potent figure. But Ahmadinejad, the would-be visionary leader of a resurgent revolution awaiting the coming of the Hidden Imam, is living a dangerous illusion. And it is Iranians, not the US air force, who should be allowed to shatter his dream."

    "It's only in books that the officers of the detective force are superior to the weakness of making a mistake." (Wilkie Collins, The Moonstone)

    by chingchongchinaman on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:59:28 PM PDT

  •  My take on this was given (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chingchongchinaman, GreyHawk

    here two days ago

    It bodes only ill for us, and would surely lead to an upswing in terror attacks on American targets.  (The point of the link --admitted diary whoring -- is that this outcome feeds favorably into the Bushite agenda.)

  •  My Recommedation to Bush War Planners (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Venezuela will be easier than Iran.

    George W. Bush is just like Forrest Gump. Except that Forrest Gump is honest and cares about other people.

    by easong on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 10:05:44 PM PDT

  •  I recall asking Meteor Blades this very question (6+ / 0-)

    ... a month or so ago in hs diary about signals of an impending attack on Iran.

    The questions was someting to the effect of:

    Given the fanaticism exhibited by this adminstration and its neocon partners -- and fearing a Democratic takeover of Congress in November -- is it likely these fucking lunatics would launch an attack on Iran BEFORE the elections?

    It now seems probable given Bush's ratcheded up rhtoeic today about an October deadline.

    I think it's time for all Democrats (and those few sympathetic Republicans -- though I'm not holding my breath) to walk out of Congres and refuse to particpate in government.

    These peope are insane.

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

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 10:58:37 PM PDT

  •  Quick links to Iran, for background and nuance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ummm....and Ahmadinejad was just asking the rhetorical question about Bush--is he not rational?

    Like Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad might not realize how far gone the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld faculties are.

  •  Hopefully, This Is Just A Scare Tactic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    danmac, epppie

    With Iran's runt in New York, all this talk of Bush going to war with Iran surfaced. I hope it's nothing more than a tactic to frighten Iran into waking up and smelling the poppies.

    Logic tells us our forces are stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan to go to war with Iran, but this is George Bush in the White House and with him, all logic gets tossed out the window into the Rose Garden. I just hope a peaceful way can be found to convince Iran to stop nuclear weapon production. It's scary though and I wouldn't put it past Bush to calculate wrong. Hell, Saddam Hussein was the one who could be counted on to make all the wrong moves and now he's been replaced by Bush. Lucky us.

    Don't count on our military to put a stop to it either.  They follow orders. If they are so opposed to Bush and his policies they would have revolted long ago over Iraq. No, the only ones who can stop Bush are the people--civilians--who have a stake in watching their sons and daughters and loved ones grow up to live full and happy lives.

    Will Bush go bananas and go to war with Iran? He will but it won't be this October. Right before the election is even too crass a time for him to pull something like that. The great miscalculation and tragedy when it does happen however is that, unlike Iraq, we'll be up against an enemy who can actually fight back and hurt us badly.  

  •  Gimme ACTION LINKS, and I'll give you (0+ / 0-)

    a link to the rather Orwellian website:

    Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group

    [formerly known as Defense Group]

    Read the mission statement, and at the end, Ike's warning.

  •  October Surprise Revealed! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bellatrys, iCaroline, Glic, JuliaAnn

    I know exactly what Bush's October Surprise is and we'll all find out on Holloween eve. On that dark and stormy night, Bush will go on national television and rip off his horrific mask, and we'll find to our disappointment that underneath it all there he is, the same old dumbfuckin' reckless jerk who has our fate in his hands. And that's about as scary as you can get!

  •  I knew it! I sometimes thought I was nuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ca democrat

    for thinking they'd do this.  Apparently that was only hope.  Stupid, ignorant hope.  When will I ever learn?

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:45:37 PM PDT

  •  Krauthammer's column earlier this week (6+ / 0-)

    I am surprised I have not seen more comments about Krautie boy's positively chilling column about what will happen if we attack Iran.  I know the guy is a shill for Isreal but he is admitting that an attack on Iran will send oil to $150 a barrel, and cause us to possibly suffer some major military losses.  Even so he is still pushing for this as neccessary.  Given that he is essentially the trial balloon floater for the administration this column freaked me out when I read it.

    I hope upon hope I am wrong but here I am up at 2 AM posting on Kos because I can't sleep.

    God, please make me be wrong...please!

  •  Daniel Elsburg in this month's Harper's (7+ / 0-)

    discusses how he failed to release the Pentagon Papers in time to stop the Viet Nam War, how Richard Clarke should have taken the risk and released documents he held to avoid war on Iraq, and he urges someone to step forward and release the plans for IRAN attacks that are drawn by the Administration. Powerful article!

    •  Some in military may balk at Iran attack (7+ / 0-)

      Ray McGovern, who initially broke the news that the Navy was getting prepared for a sea attack on Iran last Sunday, also said that those who leaked the news--Naval officers--had said they might not follow orders unless there was a Congressional vote to go to war.

      McGovern didn't say the rank of those who were talking. Might have been pretty low on the totem pole.

      But I do know someone at Norfolk who is on a carrier, and he has said that dissent and dissatisfaction in the Navy over Bush warmongering is quite high.

      That said, it seems highly improbable that we'd have an outright mutiny if the president ordered an attack, with ship captains refusing to fire.

      One can dream, though.

      Still, we've reached a pretty sad point in American history when we start to look enviously at Thailand and its military coup as a model for saving our own tattered democracy.

      It would be a lot better if the American people would  recognize what's happening and just rose up this November and handed Congress to the Democrats, and then insisted that the Democrats started acting like an opposition instead of a foil.

  •  Let's take a deep breath first shall we? (4+ / 0-)

    Hersh was saying we were on the ground porbing for bombing targets for a coming war with Iran back in 2005, yet it never materialized. Let's stop playing Chicken Little with CNO orders that don't mean we are attacking Iran any more than they are orders that we are.

    Blockade planning is of course always going to be reviewed, updated and in the pipe if say sanctions come into it and a whole host of what ifs that do not necessarily indicate we are going to attack Iran. I don't put anything past this clown crew in the Oval Office but lets not put paper bags on our heads and shout last call before the Vogons make things go poof shall we?


    Mitch Gore

    Republicans believe in training Al-Qaeda, but not in training American workers.

    by Lestatdelc on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:37:00 AM PDT

    •  Excellent point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      One bite at a time

      I was thinking the same thing. Besides, most military people DO NOT want the general public to know what their plans are. It endangers them.

      I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

      by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 03:49:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Pentagon wants this stopped... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...which is why its members are leaking the information to us.  

        They know full well that Bush wants to use the planned surprise attack solely as a ratings booster right before the November elections, and that he doesn't care that by attacking Shiite-run Iran, he's signing the death warrants of our troops in Shiite-run Iraq next door.  If we spread the word and squawk about it, then the news of it will cause its planned political effect to backfire.

        The 2005 planned attack was stopped when we got the word out.  We can do the same now.

    •  Talking about it is how we stop it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The 2005 attack didn't happen BECAUSE it was leaked by the Pentagon brass, which didn't want it to happen as it would have been an incredibly bad move.

      As for the latest planned attack:  The whole point of October Surprises is that they're intended to be surprises.  If people know you're going to do them, the OSes not only won't goose your approval ratings, they'll send them even further down the toilet.

  •  Unbelievable (0+ / 0-)

    If this is true then im just trembling.

    I always thought that because the election was about 2 months away, there would be no way Bush would air-attack iran because i dont think the American public would stand for it because we're already bogged down in afghanistan and iran, now this guy wants to expand thie region war by yet attacking another country?.

    If im the democrats, i would run ads suggesting that the republicans are already making plan to invade iran...There's no way iran would produce the bomb in the next 2 3 year..This could wait.



    "I don't wanna listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore!" -Howard Dean

    by astronautagogo on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:18:55 AM PDT

  •  Bush attacked Iraq before invasion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As is elaborately documented by John Conyers, Bush attacked Iraq with bombing raids and sent in special forces BEFORE any authorization from Congress. Bush diverted funds from the war in Afghanistan, ILLEGALLY, to fund the build-up of troops in the Persian Gulf, in preparation to invade Iraq.
    The war plan requested of the Pentagon last year by Dick Cheney includes plans to attack Iran with NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the aftermath of a "9/11-type" terrorist attack, whether Iran was involved in the attack or not.
    It is too dangerous to let Bush and Cheney remain in office. We can't wait for the elections. We can't wait til next week.
    Our generals are sworn to uphold the constitution, and we need to start calling them and writing to them to remind them of that. YES, I AM SUGGESTING THAT THEY REMOVE THE WAR CRIMINALS FROM OFFICE AND DETAIN THEM IMMEDIATELY.
    The whole line of presidential successsion is compromised by war crime policies. We cannot allow these maniacs to start a general regional war in the Middle East, because it is madness.
    A possible interim solution would be for the generals to refuse to implement Bush's plans to attack Iran, and for them to call on the Congress to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. That would at least stall Bush long enough for the Constitutional process to take over, and for the elections to go forward. I fear Bushco knows of a spectacular terrorist attack in the works, and plan to exploit it. In that case, the interim solution won't work.

    •  You're asking Bush's most faithful servants-- (0+ / 0-)

      namely the military brass--to move against Bush?

      Now that's desperate.

    •  This Is Congress's Job (0+ / 0-)

      They should pass a non-authorization resolution that specifically prohibits Bush from launching any more attacks without a Congressional declaration of war.

      But, neither the military nor Congress will prevent him from going to war if he decides to. Congress is full of spineless "politicians" and the military can't know whether an order to attack is legitimate.

      Besides, I don't believe the military will remove the President. That's so against all training and tradition in the U.S. that anyone who even brought it up would probably be drummed out of the service. If attempted, it would inevitably fail and those involved would swing.

      Refusing to attack Iran has more legs, in that, I can foresee a kind of Friday Night Massacre, where Bush ordered an attack and one or more officers resigned rather than carry out the order. They could point out that without a declaration of war that such an order is illegal.

      It's very sad that we are dicussing this. This is what it's come to: we are affraid Bush is such a loose cannon that he'll resort to going to war to prevent Congress from going to the Democrats. I nominate him for "Worst Person in the World!"

      Liberal Thinking

      Think, liberally.

      by Liberal Thinking on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 03:21:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mining and blockading Iran's harbors is an (0+ / 0-)

    act of war. Iran would have every right to defend her waters, and fight back.

    Most Americans do not know that mining and blockading another nation's harbors is an act of war. Cheney is relying on this, so that when Iran does react, he can claim the attack was unprovoked.

    We can try to make sure that Americans do know.

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:35:29 AM PDT

    •  US Will Not Mine Iran (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I doubt the US will mine the Strait or even Iranian harbors.  That provides perfect cover for the Iranians to mine the Strait themselves and then blame the US because mines got loose and floated into the Strait.  Besides, if the Iranians are denied the ability to export, nothing restrains them from blockading the Strait out of self-interest.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:37:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree - I think our mining of their harbors (0+ / 0-)

        will provide the perfect context for Cheney et. al., in that they think the Iranians will retaliate by attacking our ships. It's not like this hasn't been done before - some would say as recently as Lebanon.

        I think Cheney understands that Americans will not buy into attacking Iran without such a scenario. If we start to see a lot of talk about the 1979 hostage situation, then this will be confirmed. One thing that Rove knows how to do is lay a foundation; create the proper atmosphere for the plan.

        Think about the lead up to the invasion of Iraq: Hussein complied with every demand, trying to thwart the Neocons. They kept adding more demands, which he satisfied. Iran is doing the same thing now.

        17. Ne5

        In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

        by Spud1 on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:44:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  God, (0+ / 0-)

    let's hope this is just a wild rumor...

  •  What about the possibility of Bush enforcing..... (0+ / 0-)
    his version of United States sanctions isolating Iran in a way the UN is not willing to do?  

    George would have to be nuts to go to war with Iran as thin as we spread.  I just cannot see this happening.  Then again, I never thought Posse Comitatus would have gone down the crapper either.

    If you are correct, we all had better prepare for the draft.

    I dunno....

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:10:05 AM PDT

  •  With apologies to our Slashdot friends... (0+ / 0-)

    1. Nuke Iran
    2. Impose Martial Law
    3. Suspend the Election
    4. ???
    5. Profit!

    •  Slashdotters... (0+ / 0-)

      think too rationally.  And that's also why they will never get laid.

      Never will understand the Bush supporters on Slashdot, who watch Starwars and then call Microsoft the evil empire.  Seen it happen though, with my own two eyes.

  •  This is how we treat our partners.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nitetalker, TripleChin
    in the war on terror?

    "Musharraf: US threatened to bomb Pakistan"

    By David Usborne in New York
    Published: 22 September 2006

    From: The Independant

    "The President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, reveals in an interview to be aired at the weekend that, soon after the terror attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States threatened to bomb his country "back into the Stone Age" if he didn't offer its co-operation in fighting terrorism and the Taliban."

    "General Musharraf claims that the warning was delivered to his own director of intelligence by the US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. "The intelligence director told me that [Armitage] said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age'," General Musharraf said, according to excerpts of the interview released by CBS last night."


    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:31:53 AM PDT

    •  That was reported a couple years ago (0+ / 0-)

      Not news - it may be good PR for Armitage's rehabilitation, but it's not news.

      •  Back then it was rumor and not common ... (0+ / 0-)
        knowledge.  It has now come from the man himself.

        And wasn't George such a gracious host (frickin jerk really) in his opening statment to mention how we have an understanding and look at all the carrots we versus sticks we give.  

        George Bush is the antithesis of a diplomat.  He could not serve himself his own ass with any dignity.

        This administration is beyond rehabilitation and I resent them using my tax dollars and my reputation as an American who loves his country to disgrace us in the eyes of the world.

        You walk tall and silently with a big stick.  BushCo and thier GOP toadies are schoolyard bullies.

        BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

        by Habanero on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:08:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This article should be spread as far and wide as (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, BlueInARedState


    Democratic talking heads should pus the following meme:

    "This election is shaping up to be a routing of the Repoublican Party with the only way for the GOP to win being if President Bush foolishly attacks Iran just prior to the election!"

    ABC is dead to me. Disney is dead to me.

    by Walt starr on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 06:03:58 AM PDT

  •  I'm not saying Bush won't do this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terre, Buddha Hat

    But it would be a stupid move pre-election. People will not reward the Republicans for this move.

    With one miserably unpopular war, and even more miserable polling numbers on attacking Iran, I just don't see this playing out. Might even hand us the Senate.

    •  He thinks it will... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and that's good enough for him.

    •  Sure they will., (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      as long as we're "winning" on Election Day.

      Americans like few things better than a good turkey-shoot, and they hate Iranians.

      •  Timing is Everything (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, kidneystones

        Precisely!  If the electorate perceives we're "winning" on Election Day because no adverse results have happened yet, then it's an electoral boost for the 'Publicans.  Dubya and the posse just need to make sure the air attacks on Iran occur close enough to Election Day so that the blowback isn't known while not appearing to be pure partisan politics.  

        The air attacks will likely take out the Iranian anti-shipping missile batteries in addition to the Iranian nuclear research facilities, so obvious dangers will be eliminated.  The anti-mine warfare ships being sent are intended to reassure the commercial shipping that the tankers will be protected against potential mine attacks in the Strait.  On Election Day, the attack will appear to have worked, if the attack is timed properly.  It won't matter that the Iranians might have mines being activated on Election Day to sink a tanker a few days after Election Day.  

        Election Day perceptions are all that matter - politik uber alles.  Former Bush administration insiders have told us that repeatedly over the last six years.  Why should we expect anything different today?

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:31:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Could be the end of our military (0+ / 0-)

    See the disastrous results when we wargamed this:

    Peace in a world free of Religion, Peace in a world where everyone gets Heaven... -- Toni Halliday

    by Wintermute on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 06:18:16 AM PDT

    •  Uh-uh... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The US has six thousand nukes. Ordinance of one kind or another will do a lot of the heavy lifting.

      The US has plenty of healthy replacements wandering around college campuses and don't think for a second Bush lacks the nuts to round a bunch up and ship them off to Iran.

      If this goes down big enough to really put the hurt on the Iranians, the whole board changes.

      And if you thought 9/11 changed everything wait till you see the next installment.

      Shock and Awe II: the End of Iran.

  •  so the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    so the real october surprise will be 7.00 a gallon gas or more.  We attack Iran, they shut of the spicket, so does Ven. and they can block the straights, and it is GAME OVER for america.  Yeah that is going to be a big surprise. I wonder if bush will suprise by the rioting in the streets this will cause.

  •  Repub/Admin Election Strategy: (0+ / 0-)

    Hey, we're fucked anyway, so might as well try this.

  •  Didn't Learn from Israel's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terre, corvo

    unpopular adventurism?  For all you conspiracy theorists out there, ask yourself, "Did Israel invade Lebanon following a joint Administration-Israeli 'deal'"?

    That fracas being over (too soon?), is it necessary to create another diversion to distract the voters from the quagmire in Iraq?  Are they acting under the premise, if it's broke, smack another pinata?

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 06:25:13 AM PDT

  •  He is not crazy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This is "Wag the Dog" politics at its worst. He would alienate the Conservatives AND the Democrats AND all the soccer moms who would be paying $4.00 a gallon on Nov 2nd. Plus our Middle Eastern allies (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain) will not stand for it.. they are more worried about Iran destroying their water supplies than anything else.

    No way. I can't believe this will happen. Its insanity.

  •  Wow- what a gift for the Democrats! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Considering that the U.S. has neither the resources or the manpower for another war, that we no longer have the capacity for strategic planned based on reality, given that Rummy and his crew routinely silence anyone opposed to their fantasy-based ideas, considering that this would bring down the wrath of the entire world on our shoulders and probably the wrath of the so-called insurgents on our soldiers in Iraq, causing the death toll there to skyrocket within days -- if they truly did this in OCTOBER, it would be obvious by election day what a debacle this was and what a totally disastrous position it put our country in and would likely propel the Democrats to overwhelming victory.

    I'd say bring it on, but I don't wish this kind of catastophy on anyone and I certainly don't wish it on our sitting-duck troops in Iraq who would be the obvious scapegoats for such a mess.

    The ineptitude of Bush, Rummy and their crew would make this an ultra-risky "October surprise" that would be virtually certain to backfire.

  •  It's time to face reality, our system is broken (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RFK Lives, corvo, TripleChin

    when this gang in the White House can openly contemplate an October attack on Iran, a contrived crisis, an unprovoked and illegal war, after the debacle of Iraq and Congress critters are ready to head home to campaign, Dems included. Enough of this nonsense already, let them have at it and as today's news reports relate, let them add Pakistan too as they threatened in 2001. Maybe then we'll see the end of this Imperial Lunacy that has destroyed our Republic and our traditional way of life.

    With long lines at gas stations to buy $ 6.00 gas, with our beleagured troops having to fight their way out of the conflagration that Iraq will become when the Shites launch their civil war in response, with Europe enraged at our foolish action and the global economy crashing...perhaps, just perhaps, if we are allowed to have an election, 11/7, the Democrats will retake the House and then woopee, Rahm Emanuel and Co, will be the new masters of the K Street lobbyists!

    For  those of us not so enthusiastic about our national future, I have one word:

    Montreal, it's about 10 hours north of NYC...great food, sane people!

  •  Waging aggressive war is a crime. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As detailed in the United Nations CharterNuremberg Charter (Principle 6) and the Charter of the United Nations, of which we are a signatory.

    The preamble of the UN Charter reminds us of the horrors of the past and why we do not wage aggressive war:

    WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm With in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom....

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:11:03 AM PDT

  •  After Iraq, They Won't Have Compliant Media (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    An attack on Iran would not rally Americans around the president. They have not laid the groundwork for this. They have no allies. The fallout in the Muslim world would be horrific. Clearly it would be unnecessary and it would put the safety of the United States at dire risk.

    There's just no way. I think this is a smokescreen for another October surprise. But I have no idea what it could be.

  •  A Pre-Election Attack is Extremely Unlikely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buddha Hat

    1)Gas prices will soar. That's exactly what Republican House candidates don't need. 2)The stock market will crash. No one wants that, even Republicans. 3)People in this country will freak out and stop spending, exacerbating the effect of the housing bust on the economy. 4)Iraq will be irrevocably lost. The Shiites will riot in the streets and our troops will be sitting ducks.  Any semblance of control the US government is asserting over Iraq will be gone for good. 5)Hezbollah will resume attacks on Israel. Israel doesn't want that, at least right now, with their government under heavy criticism for its bungling of the first conflict.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:30:47 AM PDT

    •  People who Rig War Games (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      and talk about 2300 dead American soldiers as a "data point" are not necessarily operating in the same universe as most people outside of residential facilities.

      A lot of what we hear may be rumors, but if this is going to happen there will be a larger and larger stream of evidence coming down the pipe and coming down pretty quickly.  The question that keeps going through my head is if we are so logical what are we planning to do about any of these scenarios if they begin to take shape?

      Isn't it time to be at least thinking about worst possible events and be hashing out options.  Without getting ourselves into more trouble than posting to this site has already set up up for.  If the drums start beating faster and some retired military people with good contacts begin to sound warnings, what are we going to do?  Post some rants?

      If the alternative of bombing Iraq or us committing some act to goad Iran into war do we:

      start a letter writing campaign to newspapers/cspan/etc?

      Plan for massive, but legal of course, protests?

      Form a virtual Joint Chiefs of Staff to go on talk shows.

      Ask responsible religous leaders to get involved?


      Where is our war planning?

      •  Those are all good ideas. (0+ / 0-)

        in addition to haranguing our Congressmen. However my point is that the negative effects of this war, should it occur, will write their own narrative for all to see and experience.  Unlike the Iraq war, or Afghanistan, which were essentially reduced to a video game.

        Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

        by Dartagnan on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:20:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As I've said (0+ / 0-)

      upthread in two places, all you need is a threat from Iran, or apparently from Iran (including apparent terrorist action coming out of Iran) which attacks shipping or threatens the passage of the Straits of Hormuz. Once that threat is there, it will cause the gas price spike and the market panic, and it'll be all Iran's fault. The attack will then go forward as defense of the Straits and Our Oil, and part of the war on Terror if the attack that comes is some little boat full of explosives attempting to blow up a tanker or a US warship. It is that simple to manufacture war fever, even in a much more isolationist, unwarlike atmosphere than currently exists. Remember the Maine.

      Cry, the beloved country, these things are not yet at an end. - Alan Paton

      by rcbowman on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:16:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tinfoil hat time today? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PaintyKat, johnnygunn

    There is, again, no attack on Iran.  There is no public (or military) support for an attack on Iran.

    This kind of diary is garbage, based on rumors.

    You want us to panic or something?  No.

    If Bush tries to start another war, then we make sure him and his party are out of here.

    Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

    by angrytoyrobot on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:32:06 AM PDT

  •  Oct 21st is my birthday -- already have plans (3+ / 0-)

    not a good day for an invasion.  Sorry, they'll have to pick a different date.

    -6.75, -5.79

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

    by edgery on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:33:20 AM PDT

    •  Later in the Month (0+ / 0-)

      The attack won't happen on October 21st.  The major Muslim holiday Eid al Fitr falls on October 23rd this year, which usually kicks off several days of celebration.  Initiating action sometime during that celebration period would be ideal from a tactical point of view - kinda like attacking the Hessians on Christmas Eve during our Revolutionary War.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:46:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Military Reservist From My Work Just Shipped (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, blueyedace2

    Out to Iraq to be part of the Iran invasion.  He said that he's been part of the planning process for the last several months and now he needs to be on the ground to see it through.  The Iran invasion is happening as we speak.  The American people have no will to stop it.

  •  They will STOP @ nothing; October Suprise, part 2 (0+ / 0-)
  •  We're (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Not going into Iran.

    •  No, we're not (0+ / 0-)

      but our air-to-ground missiles are.

      It's not a question of 'if', merely of 'when'.

      If Bush leaves office without there having been any kind of airstrike on Iran, feel free to email me to tell me I was completely wrong.

      Four more years of peace and prosperity---not

      by stunster on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:18:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I just don't believe it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PaintyKat, laxmatt

    I must have some shred of belief in America left in me because I just can't believe this story.  I could look very, very stupid in 30 days time but as of now, I just can't believe that even Bushco could be this stupid, craven and wrong.  Yes, they embody all of those words but this would lower the bar, even for them.

    "The only difference between me and the Surrealists is that I am a Surrealist" S. Dali

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:40:41 AM PDT

  •  Just a regular deployment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, Osiris, redcardphreek

    But I just don't believe an air group shipping out necessarily means war.  Who do you think is flying all these bombing missions over Iraq and Afghanistan? - Squadrons based on aircraft carriers anchored in the Gulf.

    The USS Enterprise, also a nuclear aircraft carrier, has been in the Gulf flying missions over Afghanistan for a while - and this is their second prolonged stop in the Gulf since their "six-month" cruise (quotations because it's already been extended two-three weeks) began in May.  

    The other ships mentioned (cruise, frigate, etc.) are part of the carrier's air group - they always accompany the carrier on its deployment, so there's no reason to panic because of their mere presence.

    When I read here that the USS Eisenhower was being deployed, it actually made me happy.  Why?  Because my father is stationed on the Enterprise right now, and hopefully the Ike is going to replace his carrier group so that he and the rest of the Big E men can come on home on time.  If the military is in the middle of a major offensive in Afghanistan, they're not going to ship the pilots and crew home until there are replacements to rotate in.

    May this be a build-up to war?  Sure.  But it's also just as likely, if not more likely, to be normal military operations.

    The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe around us, the less taste we shall have for destruction - Rachel Carson

    by ciao gatta on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

    •  Makes some sense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, Osiris, ciao gatta

      As Afghanistan is heating up again, they may require more air assets.

    •  Concur (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      redcardphreek, ciao gatta

      This is most likely just a regularly scheduled deployment.  

      I'm betting it's Enterprise's relief.

      Chill, folks.

      •  build-up or relief (4+ / 0-)

        Well, as mentioned in the article, if we hear that the Enterprise is headed home, then it would probably be a rotation. There has been no word about the enterprise leaving its post though, even though six months are up and that's the usual rotation period.

        Second, officers from the Ike are complaining about this being part of an attack plan.

        Also, it jibes with the Time report on a mine ship unit deploying.

        Finally, the departure of the Eisenhower was sped up suddenly.

        It all fits with other reports of war plans and war activity.

        I hope I'm proven wrong.

        •  what I've heard (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckhorn okie

          What they're telling the Enterprise families (or at least this Enterprise family) right now is that the ship will be home just in time for Thanksgiving, which puts them two or three weeks beyond six months.  They've already announced scheduled ports for the return trip, so the E isn't planning on remaining in the Gulf for the entire rest of the deployment.

          And yeah, it could be build-up - but build-up for the increased offensive in Afghanistan we've been seeing.  On my part, I'm sure my judgment is clouded because I miss my dad and just want him home safe and sound, but I really hope you're wrong, too.

          The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe around us, the less taste we shall have for destruction - Rachel Carson

          by ciao gatta on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:54:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The best part.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, el maso, huskerly

    is those of us who were talking about this six, twelve, and eighteen months ago were labled "tinfoil hatters" by half the people who hit the recommend button.

    I am so far to the left I can almost see the right again.

    by beagleandtabby on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:53:24 AM PDT

  •  Shut it down on October 5 (4+ / 0-)

    Shut it down on October 5.

    I still recall that I walked out of my 7th grade class on October 5, 1969 to protest the Vietnam War -At that time Nixon was developing secret plans to escalate the war and nuke Vietnam, just like Bush is planning for Iran.

    On October 5, people everywhere will walk out of school, take off work, and come to the downtowns & townsquares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to join us - making a powerful statement: "NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT

  •  It might not make a difference but (0+ / 0-)

    Doesn't the president need congressional authorization to go to war?  Or would the administration's position be that the authorization that let them into Iraq gives them carte blanche to invade anyone and everyone?

    "My methods are new and causing surprise. To make the blind see, I throw dust in their eyes."

    by marykk on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:22:30 AM PDT

    •  Or Bushco creates a causus belli (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      For instance, move a US ship all the way over into Iranian waters, let it get challeneged and then fired upon; and then boom! suddenly everyone who cautions against invading is a pussy.

      Or even better, pull a Viet Nam LBJ and claim an entirely fictional incident such as above occurred. It'd be the Persian Gulf of Tonkin.

      Of course such a could never happen, because there are no similarities between Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/(your nation's name here) and Viet Nam/Cambodia/Laos/(other nations we haven't heard about because the history's still classified).

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by jbeach on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:35:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

      The Supreme Court has never ruled against the President on a case about his authorization to use military force. On the other hand, Bush would be an idiot not to do it - he needs Congressional support as a political matter and he can easily get it from his rubber stamp Congress.

    •  No, and yes. (0+ / 0-)

      You are absolutely right that only Congress can declare war.

      The last time Congress declared war was December 8th, 1941.

      So you see the problem.

      -9.0, -8.3. The point I just made is the most important point. -George W. Bush

      by SensibleShoes on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:07:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How will China and Russia (0+ / 0-)

    react to this?

    Didn't China already state that a 'blockade' would be taken as sign of aggression?

    "This is a new day. We will not be silent" Mayor Rocky Anderson Salt Lake City, Utah Aug.30,2006

    by Esjaydee on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:36:35 AM PDT

  •  It may happen in October (0+ / 0-)

    but I'd hardly call this a surprise. In fact, if not for looming elections and that timing is everything, I'd be asking what took them so long?

  •  The Neighbor's Kid, a Sailor, just Shipped Out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    His group just left San Diego and are headed to the Persian Gulf, supposedly for six months.  This is his first deployment.  When I heard this two weeks ago, I thought it was odd that we were sending MORE people instead of bringing them home.

    Alas, the October Surprise.

    How about we pledge to march on Washington if they start another war?

    •  My grandaughter is being sent to train Iraqi (0+ / 0-)

      police and she just finished basic a couple of months ago.  The recruiter told her that the Navy never sees ground action and the Navy would never send seaman to Iraq.

      They lack soldiers for the battle in Iraq.  It is unbelievable even Cheney would believe he could use "nucular weapons" on Iran or anywhere else and get away with it.

      I just don't believe this rumor at all.  I think it belongs in the trash heap with the other 20-40 diaries that have been bombed on dkos in the last few days to stop the Democrats positive gains in the elections.

      Folks writing these scenarios write no differently than those who wrote the scripts for Path to 911. I will be skipping reading and don't plan to let them distract me and I will make appeals to others.  When I click on posters I notice many of them appear to be the same detractors.

      I've come to believe the independents in some cases must be as evil as the GOP because they keep handing our country to the GOP and we have lost 2300 young people to date, that we know about.  The indies must think the only way for them to survive and prosper as a party is to destroy our country along with the GOP.

      My plan is to work harder than ever on elections so that we can get Democrats elected to office and take our country back from these ghouls.

      Back to work, nothing happening here.


      Thou Shalt NOT Whine...Get to WORK! Just a painty kat - NOT that be meanie cat

      by PaintyKat on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:40:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  would an invasion of Iran (0+ / 0-)

    or related military action, necessarily, and immediately, translate into votes for Republicans? Just because Bush, a Republican president, would have ordered said hypothetical invasion? I don't really see the equation as simple as that. What about all the Repubs. who've been distancing themselves from him? Would they suddenly fly back to the fold? What about Dems. like Clinton, who've supported most of Bush's war plans already? Wouldn't they be lifted by the (conjectured) support for Bush and the hypothetical invasion? I just don't see an invasion as necessarily driving a sharp wedge between Dems. and Repubs. in the mind of the electorate. An invasion or bombing may be in the offing, but why necessarily for Wag the Dog electoral reasons?

  •  Lord help us all. This maniac is out to destroy (0+ / 0-)

    America.  Americans will not put up with this.

    Democrats: Standing Together and Winning In 2006!

    by txbirdman on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:24:17 AM PDT

    •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

      we put up with all the other bullshit thus far-- including BS like Homeland Security funding spent on a "flea market" in Tennessee-- but not on increased security for our numerous chemical manufacturing and storage facilities.

      "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

      by Superpole on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are we as smart (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, txbirdman

      as Germany in the thirties? That may be the question.

      "My methods are new and causing surprise. To make the blind see, I throw dust in their eyes."

      by marykk on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:55:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Am I so naive (0+ / 0-)

      as to believe this would piss off the american public ? the majority already hates that we are in Iraq..if we declare war AGAIN I dont understand how this garners any support for Republicans.  I just dont get it.

      Politics is like driving...if you want to go backwards, choose R. If you want to move forward, choose D.

      by fireflynw on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:56:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think this goes under (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laxmatt, Buddha Hat

    the category of saber rattling.

    No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow

    by craigb on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:29:21 AM PDT

    •  October cover up, not surprise (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Its for when they steal the election, the REAL October surprise, is in November. Then they have the plausible excuse for how all the pre/exit polls went wildly wrong, that the strike on Iran rallied the base, the Dems looked weak and voila! They now have bulletproof majority.

      Herr Rove will be on the radio, mark my words, the Saturday before, and he will tell us the statistical mechanism that will be used to excuse the bad numbers. In 2004, it was the Christian religious right who came out to vote against gay-marriage, that's what swung the election.

      Of course, when the numbers were crunched afterwards, it turned out that nationwide, these Christians voted in a sizable minority, AGAINST George Bush and FOR  the gay-marriage bans. And he overstated their strength by about FIVE million. In Michigan, Bush only got 58% percent of the Christian Right vote, but you would think that he got 100% percent, well, because the MSM listens to Herr Rove.

      Look for the security mom excuse/cover up this time.

  •  Its not over yet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie

    That this story is coming out now is a good thing...our friends in the military want to avoid this at all costs.  Also, many people now will have a chance to talk about this and raise the alarm, particularly with regard to the fact that this would be totally impeachable and the preferable course of our military would be to arrest Bush, Rummy, Rice, Cheney and Gonzalez.

    sign the petition at

    by DrKate on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:03:19 AM PDT

  •  JCS Has "Accepted the Inevitable..." (0+ / 0-)

    Thursday September 21, 2006

    Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option

    By Larisa Alexandrovna

    The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.

    The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.

    "The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting."

    A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as "what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon.

    Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option, the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran.

    An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation.

    "The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said."

    The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration's thinking."

    "The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon."

  •  Oh...shit. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:25:59 AM PDT

  •  I just hope (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this leads to a Thailand-Plus scenario:

    Remove corrupt rulers bloodlessly

    Clean up the electoral system

    Fresh honest elections

    Domestic and international Criminal proceedings against the BushCo gang

    Joint gallows for BushCo and Saddam Hussein

    Universal peace and a greening of the world order

    Four more years of peace and prosperity---not

    by stunster on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:27:19 AM PDT

  •  I reiterate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to paraphrase Freud - Sometimes a deployment is just a deployment.  Maybe it is just this battlegroups turn.  We had a permanent carrier group presence in the Med my entire 8 years stationed in Spain - - it didnt mean that we were constantly on the verge of bombing Libya.  That and this comment from the other day -

    I'd say the chances of a military strike on Iran (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:ablington, Iowa Boy
    are slim to none.  Of course there is going to be contingency planning, the Joint Chiefs would be derelict in their duty if they didn't plan.  Before WWII, we had contingency plans against France and England even.

    The best-known of these plans (although they were secret at the time) is probably War Plan Orange, a plan for war with Japan, which formed some of the basis for the actual campaign against Japan in World War II which included the huge economic blockade from mainland China.

    War Plan Red, a more hypothetical plan for war against Britain and Canada, caused a stir in American-Canadian relations when declassified in 1974. A related plan was War Plan Crimson, which envisioned a limited war with the British Empire concentrating on an invasion of Canada. In this color scheme, the UK was "Red," Canada "Crimson," India "Ruby," and Australia/New Zealand were "Scarlet." Though the possibility of a war between the United States and Great Britain diminished greatly after World War I, the plan was kept updated as late as the 1930s. (There was concern in Washington that if Britain fell to the Axis during World War II, American forces would have to occupy Canada.)

    There were other color-coded plans developed during this period:

    War Plan White dealt with a domestic uprising in the US, and later evolved to Operation Garden Plot, the general US military plan for civil disturbances and peaceful protests. Parts of War Plan White were used to deal with the Bonus Expeditionary Force in 1932. Communist insurgents were considered the most likely threat by the authors of War Plan White.
    War Plan Gray dealt with invading a Caribbean republic.
    War Plan Purple dealt with invading a Central American republic, or possibly with Russia (There may have been two different Purples).
    War Plan Green involved war with Mexico or what was known as "Mexican Domestic Intervention" in order to defeat rebel forces and establish a pro-American government. War Plan Green was officially canceled in 1946.
    War Plan Gold was a plan for war with France and French Caribbean possessions.
    War Plan Black was a plan for war with Germany. The best-known version of Black was conceived as a contingency plan during World War I in case France fell and the Germans attempted to seize French possessions in the Caribbean, or launch an attack on the eastern seaboard.
    War Plan Indigo involved an invasion of Iceland. In 1941, while Denmark was under German occupation, the US actually did occupy Iceland, relieving British units during the Battle of the Atlantic.
    War Plan Brown dealt with an uprising in the Philippines.
    War Plan Yellow dealt with war in China - specifically, the defense of Beijing and relief of Shanghai during the Second Sino-Japanese War.
    War Plan Olive was for war with Spain.
    War Plan Silver was for war with Italy.
    War Plan Emerald was for intervention in Ireland in conjunction with War Plan Red.
    War Plan Tan was for intervention in Cuba.
    In addition there were combinations such as Red-Orange, which was necessitated by the Anglo-Japanese military alliance which expired in 1924.

    Tensions are ratcheting up, that is clear.  I think almost all of it is standard saber rattling.  Its like in 1969 when Nixon put our nukes on global alert to try to scare the Russkies.

    n 1969 President Richard Nixon ordered a worldwide nuclear alert--one of the largest secret military operations in U.S. history. Only Nixon, his special adviser for national security affairs Henry Kissinger, Kissinger's National Security Council aide Col. Alexander Haig, and White House chief of staff H. R. "Bob" Haldeman, knew that the underlying purpose of the alert, known as the "Joint Chiefs of Staff Readiness Test," was to convince the Soviets that helping to end the war in Vietnam was in their best interests.


    ...the nuclear readiness measures, he thought, would at least serve to salvage his reputation for toughness and irrationality, and thus his credibility, by reminding the North Vietnamese, and especially the Soviets, that he was capable of taking dangerous and unpredictable escalatory steps.

    Hmm...who else has issues with his toughness, irrationality and credibility that we know?

    Jeez, quit hyperventilating people.

    "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

    by calipygian on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:30:35 AM PDT

    •  Not an isolated piece of evidence though... (0+ / 0-)

      You know, the signals that this was moving inexorably forward have been coming out for a year now, since Sy Hersh first reported that the JCS was objecting to Bush's plans to keep the nuclear option on the table with regard to an attack on Iran. And, now, PTOD's issued, ships deploying, reports that the JCS has accepted its fate and allowed Bush to keep the nuke option on the table. The leaking from military generals, the testimony before Congress this past week from FIVE former JCS Chiefs from administrations Reagan, Bush, and Clinton testifying against Bush's alterations to Geneva. The long list of retired Generals who have called for Rumsfeld's ouster, and of course, the continued voice of Jack Murtha, who is voicing the military's opinion, since they cannot do it themselves, about getting out of Iraq, because it's destroying the military, and putting our troops in danger.

      All of these are signs of dissent and resistance to the CinC. The leaking is coming from those dissenters and resisters, when it does come out.

      All of this doesn't happen in a vacuum; and all of it leads one slowly but surely to the conclusion that many military leaders believe Bush would do anything for political gain. Anything. Gen. Tommy Franks, said famously, right after Afghanistan, when he retired, that if this country were ever attacked again, the Constitution would fall, and we'd be in a military police state, living under martial law.

      That sounded crazy to a lot of people back then. It just doesn't sound that crazy these days, does it?

      Bush is liable to do anything, including attack Iran.

    •  ...And Sometimes It's the Real Thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      If the deployment being considered included only the carrier battle groups, your analysis would be fine.  We would normally have a carrier battle group deployed in that region for a number of reasons.  With the USS Eisenhower coming out of refit, it makes sense to send it to the Gulf region since it's basically the newest carrier in the fleet at this point.

      Your analysis begins to stumble when we consider that the planners have included the anti-mine warfare ships in the deployment.  These ships are small and slow and specialized, as you well know.  They don't fight with the battle groups.  Rather, the battle groups exist to keep those tiny cockleshells alive, because they expect to be in an environment where those little ships will keep the rest of the fleet and the world's commerce from being destroyed.  

      The US Navy has only about a half dozen of each type of ship, so sending two of each shows just how important this mission is.    Only keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to traffic would justify such a commitment and only an active blockade or direct attack on Iran would prompt such a need.  Either way, it means we will be going to war with Iran.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:27:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It won't work (0+ / 0-)

    People don't want another war with Iraq going on right now. Even the polls say they are overwhelmingly opposed to war with Iran. If Rove does this, he's handing the election to us--provided Democrats respond quickly and correctly.

    All you have to say is a few words: we can't afford another war. We just can't. We don't have the troops, we don't have the money, and the public doesn't have the patience. I hope Rove doesn't do this.

    While we would likely win the election--there is no way I can see the American people, already exhausted from war in Iraq, supporting this decision in any considerable amount--the cost, both human and economic, would be astronomical. And it would gravely endanger national security--with a realm of terror stretching from the Persian Gulf all throughout the Middle East and South Asia.

    •  I agree completely.....but! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      All of it may well be true, but I wonder when 'reality' ever played a part in Bush's brain. After all, it was a violation of international law for him to invade and occupy Iraq, too. Yet, there we are, and are the American people taking to the streets in huge numbers to protest even the current discussion about attacking Iran?

      Silence from the masses--most of whom have been inhaling Fox News propaganda for the past 6 years, and 30% of whom still think Hussein was in one of those airplanes that hit the towers on 9/11!  

      (I have protested in DC many times at huge anti-war protests against Iraq, but there weren't even a million people at them. We have approximately 300 million in this country, so you can see the relative minority, even if the protests were about 400,000 strong!)

      Ron Suskind's famous quote in his book always comes to mind when I think, "Nah, they wouldn't be that crazy....would they?"

      Read this article and then you tell me:

      In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend - but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

         The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

         Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: "Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you." When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, "Look, I'm not going to debate it with you."

  •  This cockamamey new war plan, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    may not have much suport, but so what, neither did our attack on Iraq.  Because they have been talking about it in the media (just like  with the subject and fact of torture), our War on Iran will be something I think you all had better accept as accomplished.

    Before the Iraq attack, despite the news reports of 70% support, not one in twenty of the many people I spoke with supported going attacking Iraq.  But the President attacked anyway.  So screw you, John Q. Public.  The formula of fearmongering and dissing peace supporters will be the same.  Short of hitting the streets in massive protests and letting the Air Force practice using its new high-tech mob control weapons on irate crowds of US citizens, we will simply stay on our blogs and only complain. (See block quote below.)

    The Democratic Party is useless -- really useless!  Even if it cannot win, it can make noises, yet I hear nothing but silence about the gravest issues we face.  We citizens are screwed by both parties.  This new war will begin if the president wants it and I don't see anyone stopping it.  I think the Democracts -- yes Democrats -- had better wake up and smell the coffee.  This election is not going to be handed to you and you have done nothing I can see to move me to the voting booth with any enthusiasm or even the barest hope.

    This criminal White House is getting EVERYTHING it wants and they will have this jolly new war, too!  Fuck us!  
    Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave
    should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before
    being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

    The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it
    easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety
    considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

    "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then
    should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne.
    "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim
    it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be
    vilified in the world press."

    The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said
    the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury
    problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.

    What will stop this?  I personally think everybody is being spectacularly well behaved and polite while our country is being returned to the dark ages and we all develop a pre-Renaisance mindset.

  •  Stop the Madness!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Or at least stop the skewed logic. Sure, deploying people and materiel to the region looks like we're getting ready for war. Of course, as many have pointed out, it could just be saber-rattling. But so many of the posts have this previously-decidedupon outcome built in that they disregard any outcome but an invasion-war scenario. All this "We all know Bush is crazy," and "Sy Hersh has been writing about the inexorable buildup to the war," etc., posit the war first, then shoehorn the evidence to fit. It's the exact mirror of NeoCon logic: "We want to go to Iraq, we're going to go there, therefore Saddam is dangerous to us and the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and democracy will flower." Thus, we fear Bush attacking Iran (a nightmare scenario) and we want him to do so too (otherwise, our paranoia needs retooling, and some of us might have to find other things to do on the Internet :P): therefore, "all available evidence" points to this acutally happening.

    The most certain thing coming out of all of this is that the prospect of war has most of us scared shitless: it's easily within our darkest imaginings about this darkest of presidencies. But however close our dark fantasies are to what has happened in the last six years, we shouldn't now mistake them for accurate predictors of what's going to happen next....

  •  I contend there is ZERO evidence that (4+ / 0-)

    the upcoming naval deployment has anything to do with any upcoming strikes on Iran.  Here is the Eisenhower's latest activities

    18Jul2006, departed Norfolk
    carrier qualifications for the CVW-7 in the WestLant
    Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 06-2
    "Operation Bold Step"
    in the WestLant
    completed an eight-day JTFEX06-2
    "Operation Bold Step"
    29Jul2006, returned to Norfolk
    05Sep-15Sep2006, WestLant

    See where it says JTFEX?  Those are the final preparation for routine deployments that the United States has been doing for 60 years.  How about the compostion of the Strike Group?  Here is the typical compostion of any old strike group -

    MED 06 Enterprise CVW-1 CG-55 DDG-74  FFG-47 SSN-757 T-AOE 6 02 May 2006  

    In other words, one carrier, one cruiser, one destroyer, one frigate, one submarine and a support ship.  In fact, this particular group is the one the Eisenhower will relieve:

    MED 05 Truman CVW-3 CG 61
    DDG-87    SSN-706
    SSN- AOE-8 13 Oct 2004 18 Apr 2005

    WESTPAC 05 Vinson CVW-9 CG-54
    DDG-89    SSN-717
    SSN- AOE-2 01 Feb 2005  31 Jul 2005

    WESTPAC 05 Nimitz CVW-11 CG-59 DDG-76
    DDG-90   SSN-724 AOE-10 07 May 2005 08 Nov 2005

    MED 05 Roosevelt CVW-8 CG-56 DDG-75
    DDG-79    T-AE 34
    T-AO 196 01 Sep 2005 11 Mar 2006

    WESTPAC 06 Reagan CVW-14 CG-57 DDG-73
    DDG-85    AOE 7 04 Jan 2006

    WESTPAC 06 Lincoln CVW-2 CG-53 DDG-59
    DDG-86     27 Feb 2006

    MED 06 Enterprise CVW-1 CG-55 DDG-74  FFG-47 SSN-757 T-AOE 6 02 May 2006
    MED 06 Eisenhower CVW- CG-
    CG- DDG-
    DDG- DD-
    DD- FFG- SSN-
    SSN- AOE- 2006
    MED 07 Washington CVW- CG-
    CG- DDG-
    DDG- DD-
    DD- FFG- SSN-
    SSN- AOE- 2007
    WESTPAC 07 Stennis CVW- CG-
    CG- DDG-
    DDG- DD-
    DD- FFG- SSN-
    SSN- AOE- 2007
    MED 08 Truman CVW- CG-
    CG- DDG-
    DDG- DD-
    DD- FFG- SSN-
    SSN- AOE- 2008

    This chart shows carrier deployments from 2005-2008.  And look, Eisenhower happpens to be next!  And around now happens to be about the right time!  Im not trolling, Im trying to inject some perspective.

    "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

    by calipygian on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:20:13 PM PDT

  •  Dude may be a Republican but worth a read (0+ / 0-)

      makes sense

    I think it is time to remove the tinfoil hats

    This is not an October surprise.

  •  I think we are all missing one piece (0+ / 0-)

    of the puzzle.  

    What we've been seeing, not just from the Navy and JCS, does seem somewhat suspiciously like a forward deployment disguised as force rotation.

    But, in order for the "convenient little war" to be commenced, there must be a huge event to galvanize the public and allow military takeover and force activation.  

    By huge, I don't think that a couple of days of reruns from the Hostage crisis, PanAm 103 et al will do the trick.  Such an event would have to be on a scale equal to or greater than that of 9/11.  The question is, what is the fuse gonna be this time?

    In short, if there is in fact a plan to attack Tehran, there is a much bigger plot brewing behind it.  Something worthy of an Oliver Stone film if I get my guesses right.

    •  I agree. Look for a Gulf of Tonkin-type pretext (0+ / 0-)

      We know Bush talked with Blair about the idea of painting a plane with UN colors and having it shot at or shot down by Saddam Husseing as a pretext for war. Anyone who thinks that diabolically and deceitfully surely has other such ideas up his sleeve.

      There are endless ways the U.S. can conjure of an "incident" that will look enough like an unprovoked attack on the U.S. that he will be able to get away with ordering a massive response--one that he is now in the process of orchestrating.

    •  Iranians in Iraq (0+ / 0-)

      All they need is to find a few Iranians inside Iraq and call them enemy hostiles.  No big pretext is necessary although the "adults in charge" do seem to like their explosions.

      Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at

      by gmoke on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:44:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're thinking too small (0+ / 0-)

        a pretext would need to be bigger, much bigger.

        •  Small or Large (0+ / 0-)

          My point is that no big pretext is needed.  For a nation that has adopted torture as policy, for a government which believes that the people will never wake up, a small pretext, any pretext at all will do.

          My gut says tactical nukes in Iran before the first Tuesday in November.

          I'm hoping I'm wrong.

          Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at

          by gmoke on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:57:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hypnotized Masses, and we're part of 'em, (0+ / 0-)

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

    by HenryDavid on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:44:36 PM PDT

  •  we must protest now! not later! (0+ / 0-)
  •  Would it surprise if its true? (0+ / 0-)

    It shouldn't.  Bullies bully and they don't need a reason.  Bushco is confident they are immune from getting whupped on the playground and so they will go on bullying until they get bitchslapped.  They DO NOT give a shit about world opinion.  They DO NOT give a shit about the Constitution.  They DO NOT give a shit about international law or past treaties.  

    I don't think they will attack Iran but they are dumb enough to think they can spin an attack into another rallying cry for American nationalism.

    I'm gonna buy a gun and start a war, if you could tell me something worth fighting for.-----Coldplay

    by CO4Kerry2004 on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 03:06:58 PM PDT

  •  Are they frickin NUTS???? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cato come back

    God, how I HOPE this does not happen.

    Is there anybody with any SENSE left in Washington??  Attack Iran?  Oh excuse me ... I forget ... I'm sure it would be very quick and final.  I'm sure we'd be in and out in a matter of weeks.  I'm SURE there would be no unintended consequences ... I'm SURE we wouldn't be drawn into a ground war or anything like that ... I'm SURE Iran would just sit quietly like a good boy and take what was coming to it.

    ... Or not.  I repeat --  ARE THEY FRICKIN' NUTS?????!!!!!

    •  When will Cheney start saying (0+ / 0-)

      the Iranians will greet the troops with flowers?  Am I just having a bad dream that I'm in Nazi Germany back in the 30's?  If I'm dreaming someone give me a big shake and wake me up. Please!

      Democrats: Standing Together and Winning In 2006!

      by txbirdman on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:38:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Timeline doesn't make sense...? (0+ / 0-)

    The Nation reporter says:

    The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring.

    According to (a defense industry publication) has this:

    13 Jun 2006 - Atlantic Ocean
    08 May 2006 - Completed COMPTUEX
    06 May 2006 - Received Blue Water Certification
    October 2005 - Finished Post Shakedown Availibility and Selected Restricted Availibility
    Summer 2005 - Post Shakedown Availability (PSA)
    2 Jun 2005 - Atlantic Ocean
    09 May 2005 - Shakedown Underway complete
    ~30 Apr 2005 - Shakedown underway period
    05 April 2005 - Flight deck certification
    25 Mar 2005 - Redelivered to the fleet

    That is, the Eisenhower has been cleared for sailing since May and has been away from Norfolk for some time at least once, starting on June 13.

    Maybe the Nation reporter has more information--I'd like to know the timeline involved. When did the order to speed up refurbishment of the USS Eisenhower come in? In the last few weeks? Or several months ago? The article doesn't say, but it's implied that the order (and the accompanying PTDO) were recent. If The Nation reported indeed means to say they're recent orders, then that doesn't square with this timeline...maybe I'll email the fellow and find out.

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, Cory, Bob Johnson, Kimberley, zzmarkzz, Louise, buffalo soldier, ljb, MattK D1, Terri, SteveLCo, Maccabee, coral, MediaFreeze, PLS, pb, mikepridmore, Phoenix Woman, tankej, murphy, Rayne, NickM, Bri, laurak, natasha, roonie, gogol, Subterranean, AlanF, moon in the house of moe, TaraIst, Kimberly Stone, Delaware Dem, joeltpatterson, Powered Grace, saraswati, melvynny, vancookie, ScientistMom in NY, stumpy, pelican, JTML, bosdcla14, Lahdee, TechBob, Stoy, Shockwave, Titian, boy asunder, Sherri in TX, donna in evanston, m maddog, Wintermute, CleverNickName, SanJoseLady, bramish, democat, wintersnowman, bellatrys, JaneKnowles, adkay, rhubarb, Troutfishing, TX Unmuzzled, Raven Brooks, HootieMcBoob, gecko, kdub, figdish, Gary in NY, blksista, pseudomass, frisco, dash888, enthusiast, theran, RFK Lives, Matilda, zeroooo, catchawave, exNYinTX, givmeliberty, Caneel, linc, strengthANDwisdom, ysbee, Eternal Hope, maggiemae, Thistime, bara, DaveV, Microangelo, jackspace, Cho, tyler93023, concernedamerican, Boston Boomer, joel3000, bronte17, Slacker Gal, Dazy, DrKate, wonkydonkey, RaleighRob, anotherCt Dem, guyute16, bhlogger, pHr33z, Baldwiny, grrtigger, Agathena, PsiFighter37, KBnNC, stevetat, wanderindiana, mhale85, PBnJ, Glic, mkfarkus, vmibran, chimpy, chechecule, michelle, JuliaAnn, Ignacio Magaloni, murphsurf, oslo, L0kI, oceanspray, cognitive dissonance, durrenm, aruac, MJB, BruinKid, Boxers, frightwig, Thaxter, thingamabob, marysz, Gonzophile, Cedwyn, antirove, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, sidnora, celticshel, nitetalker, Alohaleezy, bato, aitchdee, wader, suzq, Braindead, CydeWeys, kidshaleen, psnyder, Barbara Morrill, emmasnacker, Dallasdoc, DeadB0y, Chicago Lulu, crkrjx, leevank, mcm, MTgirl, gmb, ssundstoel, commonscribe, TXsharon, pilotweed, Red State Refugee, cosette, PaulVA, Caldonia, churchylafemme, Bulldawg, Red Wind, Rigjob, Penny Century, dwahzon, nika7k, snakelass, btyarbro, Mrcia, lecsmith, sommervr, lcrp, gnat, Democratic Hawk, dkmich, walkshills, firetop, bwintx, Bluefish, AllisonInSeattle, txbirdman, randallt, Eckhart1234, OrangeClouds115, DrReason, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, sfluke, Steven D, HK, bablhous, kd texan, eve, crafty, eigenman, boran2, Timroff, faithfull, rickroks, environmentalist, kevsterwj, memophage, sxwarren, Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean, MichDeb, nehark, tovan, mediaprisoner, bloomer 101, Tarindel, 3goldens, DianeNYS, bellevie, jfdunphy, el dorado gal, Elise, enough, Alegre, Five of Diamonds, baccaruda, alaprst, auditor, subtropolis, Pym, bluewolverine, OpherGopher, PBen, Jashugan, Superpole, offred, Alien Abductee, ecoast, ajsuited, terrypinder, ChemBob, Kdoug, Nastja Polisci, Richard Carlucci, boofdah, baghdaddy, lennysfo, GUGA, Annalize5, LNK, IL dac, Pam from Calif, chicagovigilante, Derelict Dog, EconAtheist, jimreyn, Buffalo Girl, dunderhead, GreyHawk, skralyx, Northwall, Overseas, illyia, JellyPuddin, bmaples, lasky57, Woz2000, Yamara, jtg, Synergy, aerdrie faenya, RickE, Arctor, sleestax, Sevah, el zilcho, joy221, teachenglish, wulidancer, moodyx, Shotput8, Cannabis, Zergle, FightTheFuture, neroden, desordre remplir, pinche tejano, Lisa Lockwood, deepsouthdoug, deacon, gearmonkey, dsteffen, Rogneid, Brian B, Spathiphyllum, proudprogressiveCA, empathy, Alan Arizona, danger durden, viscerality, hatdog, lgmcp, SoulCatcher, martini, pmc1970, occams hatchet, Appalachian Annie, andreuccio, Showman, keefer55, zot23, nyarlahotep, danmac, Thundergod, methodishca, Keone Michaels, Fasaha, cas2, rcbowman, vigilant meerkat, tsallen, BlueInARedState, venatrix, DC Scott, SeattleChris, cookseytalbott, moneysh, buhdydharma, compbear, johnsonwax, Ohio 2nd, Esjaydee, madcitymelvin, Gasonfires, srvaughn, greenearth, quinque, DeweyCounts, TalkieToaster, birdbrain64, MJ via Chicago, ChrisB, david1111, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, FireCrow, Kitten, armadillo, CTLiberal, edgery, Dinclusin, ab imo pectore, Turbonerd, ChapiNation386, ilyana, Timothy J, Mae, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, means are the ends, takeback, RantNRaven, Peter Laesch, kurt, ethanthej, Lew2006, growlinghamster, Snarcalita, kidneystones, bloomingpol, coolsub, Temmoku, Land of Lincoln Dem, Craig Burnham, slksfca, AllanTBG, Callandor, OHdog, Aaa T Tudeattack, Monique Radevu, Mishima, McSnatherson, smaugg, J Royce, dov12348, out of left field, Papa Joe, malik5470, donnamarie, khereva, Cronesense, Cat Whisperer, oklacoma dem, AmericasReporter, PhantomFly, Daisy Mayhem, ksp, hormiguero, zinfandelfan, gloriana, yoduuuh do or do not, left coast lad, DrWolfy, truly egregious, martucio, RJuna, terabytes, jetdog, vivdarkbloom, Buffy Orpington, Flirtin with Disaster, todd in salt lake, stratocasterman, Zaphod Beeblebrox, epppie, lalolola, RamR, Oreo, PaulGaskin

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site