Skip to main content

According to McClatchy Newspapers Dick Cheney is on the precipice of convincing Bush to attack Iran. Diplomacy has gone nowhere because Cheney set a precondition that could not be met (stop enriching uranium before we negotiate over whether you should enrich uranium). There are almost no competent pro-diplomacy advocates inside the administration. All the generals who disagreed have been replaced. And the so-called opposition party is the biggest set of push-overs in the history of this country.


Do you think the Democrats will be able to stop Bush if he decides to strike Iran? If you do, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is an IGNORANT position to think that Democrats would even fight back against military strikes aimed at Iran, let alone effectively stop them. The Democrats WILL fold like a house of cards the minute the first bomb is in the air. They will rally around the flag like a bunch of trained Pavlovian dogs.

They are absolutely, positively no match for Dick Cheney. I loved those nonsense stories we read in the mainstream press about how Dick Cheney had lost his power inside the White House. I didn't believe it for a second, and I was right.

All of the increased rhetoric about Iran coming out of our so-called generals in Iraq is not a coincidence (I call them so-called generals because the only thing that allowed them to rise up the ranks and to be where they are is their loyalty to Cheney and Bush - and the fact that everyone who was brave enough to voice dissent has already been fired or resigned).

This is a surge of propaganda against Iran. I saw this movie before. And now just like the lead up to the Iraq War, we have a shift in the reason for attacking Iran. "They are about to have nuclear weapons" didn't quite do the trick, so Cheney switched to, "They are attacking our troops in Iraq, are you going to let them get away with that?"

Man, does Cheney know how to push Bush's buttons?! He knows that the idiot fancies himself a tough guy, so any argument that starts with, "are you going to let them get away with that?" is a total winner. Never fails. Interesting that Cheney has never asked Bush why he let Osama bin Laden get away with 9/11.

The changing rationale for the Iran War proves that Cheney doesn't give a damn about any of the stated reasons, just like he never gave a damn about so-called weapons of mass destruction or democracy in Iraq. He just wants war, by any means necessary.

We have a vice president who is seriously unbalanced. We have a president who is seriously unintelligent. And we have an opposition party who is seriously unprepared for the challenge. It's a recipe for disaster.

Our only two allies are - believe it or not - Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates. The problem with Secretary Rice is that she is as incompetent as her boss. She is one of many people who remain in the Bush White House because of her intense loyalty to Bush rather than any degree of accomplishment. She has been manhandled and steamrolled so many times by Cheney that it's hard to look at her in the face. It's embarrassing.

Will anyone stand up and tell the president, "You're vice president is absolutely nuts. Stop listening to him!!!" Of course, not. The problem is you can't fit Bush's giant ego into his pea-sized brain. And to tell him he's been an idiot for listening to Cheney all along would bruise his ego and make him go the other way.

So, that leaves us with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The last great hope for peace. Isn't that funny? Someone who in previous administrations might have been considered a hawk and a paragon of conservatism is the dove in this administration. Gates stands out as the only hope for a sane policy because he is the only person in the administration who is both sane and competent. But can he do it alone? My guess is no.

If only there were a Democratic Party that could help him apply pressure form the outside. Pause for laughter again. The degree of my disdain for the toothless Democrats is indescribable. We are about to push into a second (third, depending on how you're counting) unimaginably stupid and reckless war - and they have no idea how to stop it. They are completely incapable of fighting back. I'm not even sure they know what's going on. They seem like feckless, clueless, sad little kids running around the hall as Vice Principal Cheney yells at them.

Please, please prove me wrong. And show me how you're going to stop this war. This is what I mean by "we have no hope." Everyone reading this knows for a fact that the Democrats cannot and will not stop this attack against Iran. And that they will fall in line like sheep the minute the bombing starts. You know it, I know it and even they know it.

So, their best defense is, "Oh, I'm sure it won't happen." And they'll say afterward, "How could we have known that Bush would abuse the authority we gave him?" Sound familiar.

By the way, I haven't mentioned the pitiable Republicans in Congress yet. But they are the dumbest of them all. The whole party is hanging by a thread. Republicans might not win another national election for twenty or thirty years if they attack Iran and it becomes the mess it is bound to become.

Half of these Republicans will lose their beloved seats and their cherished power because they went along with Cheney and Bush who have said for years that they don't give a damn about popularity (and hence democracy and hence Republican seats in Congress). Yet, they continue to rubberstamp. From time to time there will be some sound and fury signifying nothing. But for the most part, they are willingly walking off a cliff.

At least the Democrats will gain electorally from the mess in Iran. It is jaded and horrible, and honestly, I think they are too daft to even understand that calculation. But as much as the country will suffer - and it will be partly the Democrats fault for not fighting back - the Democratic Party will gain seats and power (though they certainly don't deserve it). The Republicans, on the other hand, are following General Custer to their last stand. If they can't stop Cheney before he convinces the president to bomb Iran, they're done for. And I don't believe they can. I'm not sure that anyone can break the Jedi mind lock Cheney has on Bush.

Which brings us back to Secretary Gates, the last great hope. I don't see how he's going to do it without any external or internal help. His allies are incompetent and his adversaries well entrenched.

If he succeeds, no one will know and warnings like mine will seem like they were overheated paranoia. The mainstream press, the Democrats and the Republicans will all say, "See, we told you there was nothing to worry about. There is no need for alarm or action. Just sit back and hope for the best. Everything will be fine."

If he fails, then everyone will say, "There is no way anybody could have seen this coming." The few of us who totally saw this coming - like almost all of you reading this - will scream that we saw it all the way.

We wrote about it, we read articles warning about it, we listened to the experts that told us what was coming. And the mainstream will blithely ignore it and pretend that all the people who were against the war have no credibility and all the people who brought you the war have all the credibility.

Well, I am at the point where I don't really know what more we can do. We tried. And it looks like we are on the precipice of failing. Enjoy the next war, because it will be almost as good as this war, but with worse planning (the harder it is to convince the country to go to war, the more of a surprise it has to be (we had to act right away and didn't have time to consult Congress) and the less planning there will be).

We are on the edge of disaster and the country sleeps. I hope I'm wrong. I hope sober heroes win the fight in the quiet of the night.

I hope I seem like an alarmist in hindsight (like Richard Clarke was, right?). I hope people say I got all worked up for nothing and complacency was the right strategy. But I doubt it. My guess is a few people will quote this article many years from now in a futile effort to tell people, "But people did see it coming!"

Young Turks on You Tube

Originally posted to Cenk Uygur on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:49 AM PDT.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  No hope? I disagree (16+ / 0-)

    Maybe we cannot stop Cheney from bombing Iran but when that storm hits the fan, we can craft a permanent progressive majority that will last for decades.

    Our nation will feel great pain from this most foolish of foreign policy blunders, but we will survive.

    Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

    by Bill White on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:53:28 AM PDT

  •  Tips (113+ / 0-)

    As we talked about on the show today, in some ironic way the fact that the Democrats are so weak has caused  people to be empowered. Since our representatives won't stand up for us, we have to stand up for ourselves.

    So, I still have a lot of hope for the future. But in the short term, I don't think there's anything that can be done to prevent Cheney from convincing Bush to attack Iran (barring a Gates miracle that does an intervention on Bush to talk sense into him).

    So, a lot more people will die and our economy will take a huge hit -- and then the politicians will wake up to what they have wrought. I hope they suffer as much politically as the country will suffer physically.

    •  Long past time for the Dems to use their powder. (23+ / 0-)

      To stop these madmen, impeachment and criminal indictment are the only way out. Write and call your Congresscritters, every day if you have to.

      Shop for pearls from a Union Democrat - my aunt Maryjane's Sea of Pearls!

      by boofdah on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:56:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "as much politically as the country will suffer" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      object16, antifa, ibonewits, kyril

      That only happened once: The French Revolution. Cue Symphonie Fantastique.

      The Bush Administration isn't there to create disorder in the world. The Bush Administration is there to preserve disorder in the world.

      by iconoclastic cat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:57:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "That happened only once"? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DawnG, Matt Z, kyril, GWboosebag

        "The French Revolution"?

        Well, no.  The Russian Revolution and the English Revolution weren't any picnics either.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered.  Revolution is not a smart way to go.  And we wouldn't need to go there if only our elected Democrats would read the Constitution's Impeachment Clause.  The Framers wrote it precisely to make revolution unnecessary.

        To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

        by miriam on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:18:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You bet, Cenk . . . (16+ / 0-)

      Well put.

      in some ironic way the fact that the Democrats are so weak has caused  people to be empowered. Since our representatives won't stand up for us, we have to stand up for ourselves.

    •  Our hope is HR 333 (16+ / 0-)

      Kucinich's impeachment resolution against Cheney.

      Get the bastard out of office before he kills again.

    •  Uh... (15+ / 0-)

      ...yeah, whatever dude.  Blame everything on the Democrats, but don't bother explaining how they can do the things you want them to do.  That's helpful and intellectually honest!

      BTW, I've been reading on DKos that we're within days of attacking Iran for the last 2 1/2 years.  Maybe one day we'll do the colossally stupid act of actually following through, but basing an entire diary on the premise that it's definitely going to happen doesn't seem to me to be a smart strategy of someone who cares about getting things right.  

      But who cares what anyone else thinks.  As made clear in this diary, you're obviously way smarter than every Democrat on the face of the earth.  And you're apparently far more interested in fanning unproductive outrage than engaging in tough analysis or searching for productive strategies to advance the policies and positions which you ostensibly favor.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:09:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Zzzzzzzzzzz (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, DSPS owl

        Yawn

        "Mankind must remember that peace is not God's gift to his creatures. It is our gift to each other." Elie Wiesel

        by witchamakallit on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:19:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What annoyed me is the cocksure tone (5+ / 0-)

        that WE WILL ATTACK IRAN, and that the Dems WILL DO NOTHING.

        Maybe that could happen. Maybe (probably) it won't. But to base outrage on a possible outcome of a possible (improbable) scenario is silly.

        It's one thing to write a diary about how Dems may not be doing enough preventative work to stop some sort of Iran mess NOW, but it's grasping at straws to chastise them for the possibility they might do the wrong thing under certain circumstances in the future.

        I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

        by ablington on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:22:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ...it's not unlike me getting angry at Dems now (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DHinMI, taylormattd, Bouwerie Boy

          for passing W's Supreme Court nomination of Alberto Gonzales in the wake of Justice Kennedy's death this winter.

          Goddamn them!!!

          I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

          by ablington on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:25:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There might, or might not, be an (5+ / 0-)

          attack on Iran but I seem to recall a recent 97-0 vote in the Senate that pretty much cleared the way should our little emperor get the urge.

        •  They already voted 97-0 to allow it (10+ / 0-)

          You're brain dead or purposely ignoring reality if you think these Democrats will effectively stand up to Bush if he attacks Iran. I don't think you even believe that.

          Here's one of many, many links about the 97-0 vote if you're interested:

          http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/...

          •  Cenk, (4+ / 0-)

            I am neither brain dead nor ignoring reality. I don't think we'll be attacking Iran at all (for scads of reasons), and I certainly am not convinced that Dems will not stand up to Bush if he were to try. The vote you refer to is NOT the blank check, IMO.

            Calling me names won't invalidate the opinions I have regarding Iran and our congress. I think to get mad at them now about something that isn't happening is stupid.

            I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

            by ablington on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:46:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shirl In Idaho, blueoasis

            Finally. They did it very quietly back in March, if I recall.
            They handed their Constitutional powers over to Bush, again.
            No wonder Bush feels he doesn't need to comply for anything.

            •  That bill was in July. You're thinking of March. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dconrad, GWboosebag

              WASHINGTON -- Trying to build unity on Iraq, House Democrats stripped language from a $124.1 billion wartime spending bill that sought to bar President Bush from taking unauthorized military action on another Mideast front: Iran.

              Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), who drafted the provision, said the language was too weak to achieve its purpose and risked becoming a stumbling block for Democrats on the House floor.

              The 'too weak' Iran language was stripped from a bill Bush vetoed anyway, in case anyone didn't remember.

              But here's the real kicker:

              "You've got the legislative world and then you have the real world," Mr. Obey said. "In the real world if Bush tried to attack Iran without coming to Congress for approval, I think you would really have people start to make big noise about everything from impeachment to a total [war funding] cutoff."

              Yeah right.

              I'm sure Obey will get right on those Impeachment articles the very minute Cheney orders in the bombers.

              Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

              by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:55:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  REPOST THAT DIARY, CENK! (0+ / 0-)
        •  Yeah, Politics Isn't Physics (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Angry White Democrat
          Hidden by:
          dconrad

          This diary is about as intellectually solid as astrology.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:00:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought this diary was based on this article (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Night Owl, wu ming

            that begins like this:

            President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.

            At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said.

            Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.

            Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.

            And as far as the Democrats capitulating, the proof is in the pudding. You, at this point, aren't doing a good job of even standing up for the Democrats. All you have offered is clever little put downs.

            I don't know if we will attack Iran. It seems like a colossally stupid thing to do, but your claim tis diary is akin to astrology is idiotic. We all know Cheney wants to. The Administration has been making a point of Iran's involvement in Iraq (which could have been something everyone could have avoided if they didn't lose the border after the invasion, but hey...)

            I don't know how you can stand there, especially after last weeks utter disgrace, and feel like you have the ground to spout off obnoxious dismissals of this diary.

            •  I Refuse to Defend Them For Things... (0+ / 0-)

              ...that haven't happened.

              Why aren't you attacking them for rigging the 2012 elections?  For seating Barry Bonds on the Supreme Court?  For giving Puerto Rico to the Taliban?

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:05:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Enmeshed in your rather outlandish examples (0+ / 0-)

                is a decent point, but what this diary is partly a reflection of is the lack of hope and faith that is rapidly growing in our ranks. Your remarks do little to compel those who really do see little hope in our party from seeing any different.

                •  My Remarks Are As Serious As This Diary Is (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ablington, Matt Z

                  Attacking Democrats for not doing anything in the future, especially on Iran, which people have been saying is going to be attacked any day now for 2 1/2 years, is absurd.  Thus, the absurd examples.  

                  As for the hope and faith, sure, that's absolutely a problem, and I'm well aware of it.  Thus, my disgust with a diary that adds nothing substantive to the discussion of what to do about the problem, and in fact contributes to the problem not by discussing the lack of hope some people feel, but reinforcing the idea that one is a sucker for NOT feeling hopeless.

                  This diary is cynical.  And I'm not a cynic, and cynicism and progressive politics are completely antithetical.  

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:21:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  TRed for trolling (0+ / 0-)

            "This diary is about as intellectually solid as astrology." I've never troll-rated a user with a three-digit uid before, and one whose diaries and comments I often respect, but that's as clear a troll comment as I've ever seen. Sorry, DHinMI.

            45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

            by dconrad on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:20:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a Troll From the Front Page (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bouwerie Boy

              That's also as intellectually coherent as astrology, but if it makes you feel better...

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:22:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It certainly doesn't make me feel better (0+ / 0-)

                I don't think you're a troll. But from the troll rating article linked off the FAQ (which you probably know better than I do):

                To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie.

                Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating. It is an editorial vote to delete a comment from the conversation.

                I think "simply inflamatory" is the perfect description of your comment, above. BTW, the diary isn't about the 97-0 vote, and only tangentially about the Democrats. In case you somehow missed it, it was about a McClatchy article.

                45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

                by dconrad on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:55:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ablington, Bouwerie Boy

                  If it was "about a McClatchy article" it would analyze the article, try to assess it's reliability, etc.  No, the article is about screaming that we're attacking Iran in the future, and complaining that in the future, when something that hasn't happened and may not happen, the Democrats did the wrong thing.  Thus, it's all about forseeing the future, with what ablington rightly described as cocksure confidence in the diarist's clairvoyance.  Thus, it's about as intellectually sound as astrology.  The fact that it hurts your delicate sensibilities to point this out and that you're afraid of anyone one seeing this says a lot about you.  And it's not good.

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:15:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  the two are not mutually exclusive [nt] (0+ / 0-)

                surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

                by wu ming on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 12:29:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I'm going to be harsh, but ... (33+ / 0-)

        you sound like an apologist. Congratulations on your minimum wage hike. That's what the Democrats are bragging about, right? The tiniest of victories.

        What I am not interested in hearing anymore is how Democrats will do the right things IF we give them more and more electoral victories. No more ifs. We delivered in the 2006 elections, now it's time for them to deliver.

        They voted 97-0 to say that Iran is killing our troops and that we are in a proxy war with them. That is awful and painfully stupid. If that's what more Democratic victories brings us, then I have no interest.

        I am not a partisan, I am a patriot. I care about this country not some meaningless Democractic victories.

        If you make money off of them somehow, congratulations to you. But if they don't do what we elected them for, then they are USELESS.

        And for the record -- and so you can save everybody the same boring speech -- yes, I will begrudingly vote for them because I udnerstand the Republicans are a thousand times worse BUT I will also support every primary candidate that runs against Democrats who betray their voters and I will NOT give money to Democrats who vote with Republicans.

        •  You're Both Right, Actually. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jds1978, Matt Z, GWboosebag

          I sense a bit of an apologist tone coming from DHinMI, but he's right in his criticism that you offer nothing productive here and simply inflame rage.

          You are also correct that the Dems will probably do nothing, which is because they cannot do anyways to stop a presidential decision like this. Even if they could, would they have the spine to do it?

          But rage without a channel to accomplish something productive is worthless. I rec'd the diary anyway though ebcause of the new information you provided from McClatchey.

        •  Apoligist For What Hasn't Happened? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bouwerie Boy

          Get real.  You wrote a WE'RE ATTAKING IRAN AND THE DEMS ARE RIDING THE BOMBS LIKE SLIM PICKENS IN DR STRANGELOVE diary, which is about the 9,472,526th diary of this variety, and all you do is complain.  

          And jeeze, don't use whatever brain I assume you have.  Have things not become law because the Dems haven't come together and voted for them, or because the Repubs have used the cloture vote in the Senate to block just about everything?

          To blame the failure to pass all kinds of things that have passed the house on the Democrats is either stupid or dishonest.  I'll let you decide which explanation to attribute to you.

          My vote?  Dishonest, with a love of getting attention by appealing to people's lowest common denominator.  If you make make money off that somehow, congratulations to you.  But in terms of changing things for the better, that's, as you might say, useless.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:53:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not what they haven't passed, (4+ / 0-)

            To blame the failure to pass all kinds of things that have passed the house on the Democrats is either stupid or dishonest.  I'll let you decide which explanation to attribute to you.

            It's what the Dems have passed that is so disheartening.

            • $100+ billion for the Surge.
            • Lieberman's Senate resolution that sets a pretext for attacking Iran after  stripping anti-attack language out of the supplemental.
            • And, lest we forget, granting the ability for AG AG to legally spy on us all for at least the next six months (the timing of which seems even more suspicious given this news today),

            All of these votes were within the Dems' ability to prevent, yet not only didn't the leadership keep these resolutions from coming to the floor, they actively supported getting them there.

            So before you start hyperventilating about CU being dishonest, I suggest you get your facts straight about the real issue here.

            Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

            by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:13:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Engaged What He Wrote (0+ / 0-)

              Congratulations on your minimum wage hike. That's what the Democrats are bragging about, right?

              As for "Democrats" passing these things, there is substantive criticism to be leveled at the leadership for letting the supplimental and the FISA bills pass with small minorities of Democratic votes, but it's not honest to say "the Democrats" passed something that, at least in the House, over 4 out of 5 Democrats voted against.  

              So you need to get YOUR facts straight.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:17:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you really that naive? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wu ming, North Country Dem

                it's not honest to say "the Democrats" passed something that, at least in the House, over 4 out of 5 Democrats voted against.

                Sure, once the bill reaches the floor everybody plays the voting game to look like they were for it/against it all along (see FISA as Exhibit 'A'), but the bottom line is every one of those bills would never have been passed if the Dem leadership hadn't let the vote come to the floor in the first place - a vote, BTW, whose outcome in each case was predetermined.

                But you know that.

                Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

                by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:32:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, I'm Very Naive (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Night Owl

                  Thanks for the cogent argument demonstrating your superior knowledge of politics.  I have much to learn from you, especially since I know so little.

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:36:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I'm Glad I Took the Day Off From Work... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Night Owl

                  ...so you could teach me so much!

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:37:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  So voting on bills is just a game to you? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Read This Diary (0+ / 0-)

                    here.

                    "Why was H.R. 3356 (the negotiated, not-as-bad version) brought to a vote on the house floor under a suspension of house rules so that passage required 2/3 votes? a procedure normally used for non-controversial measures?" and "Why was S.1927 brought to a vote on the house floor without a rule, using instead a unanimous consent agreement that allowed passage by simple majority?"

                    Then come back and tell me the Dem leadership is not playing games with votes on these bills.

                    Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

                    by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:44:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Which is why DHinMI said (0+ / 0-)
                      that criticism of the leadership is valid, but that doesn't change the fact that most Democrats voted against the bill, so saying "The Democrats" passed it isn't true.
                      •  I suppose Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer (0+ / 0-)

                        and the rest of the Congressional Leadership are all Republican?

                        Geez, stop with the silly semantic arguments and open your eyes to what is really going on here.

                        The leadership of the Democratic representatives in Congress, who were voted into their positions by a vote of all of the Dem rep rank and file, have been actively complicit in enabling Bush's agenda.

                        But hey, if it makes you feel better that YOUR specific rep voted the right way, even though the outcome the other way was never in doubt, then who am I to tell you differently?

                        Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

                        by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:15:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Were you not listening? (0+ / 0-)
                          DHinMI said that there are valid criticisms to be made against the Democratic leadership in Congress, and I agree with him.

                          But the fact remains that most Democrats voted against the bill. And whatever you may think, those votes are not meaningless, no more so than any votes against a bill that passes or for one that fails are meaningless.

                          •  Their votes ARE meaningless (0+ / 0-)

                            The only vote that counted in all of this was when the reps elected the leadership.  Since then, with every engineered loss, it hasn't mattered one bit which way the rank and file votes because the fix was in with the GOP in advance.  

                            But even more importantly, whether they be rank and file voting against Bush's agend or the leadership rigging the final vote in his favor, they are all Democrats and so they are all responsible as a delegation for these losing outcomes.

                            If the rank and file is so fed up with the purposeful nullification of their majority status, they can vote out the leadership.  But until that happens, any of the actions of the Dem congressional leadership in enabling Bush's agenda happen with the rank and file's full support and consent.

                            Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

                            by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)
                            Progressive Democrats are not responsible for the cowardice and complicity of the Blue Dogs. Only the Blue Dogs themselves (and those who go along with them) can claim that "honor."
                          •  That's not what I said (0+ / 0-)

                            Progressive Democrats are not responsible for the cowardice and complicity of the Blue Dogs.

                            and you know it.

                            Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

                            by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:32:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are trying to paint all Dems (0+ / 0-)
                            with the same broad brush. And you know it.
        •  BTW, If You Think There's No Hope... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angry White Democrat

          ...then get the fuck out of the way.  There are plenty of people trying to change things, and if you think it's pointless, get the fuck out of the way for the people who have the guts and energy and passion and commitment to do things instead of complain and say "woe is fucking me."  We don't need people around here saying it's pointless, we need people willing to commit to changing the country.  You appear more intent in just complaining and trafficking in doomsaying and getting attention.  That's not productive.  So get out of the way.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:07:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree.... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DHinMI, Matt Z, GWboosebag

          we did NOT deliver them (whomever you designate as the "dems") the real deal.  There were a lot of places where we gave them a "republican" lite; i.e. a centrist who could get elected.

          While I understand your frustration, I am not sure everyone understands just how bad it is in some "RED" areas.  In my area, we had a "moderate" dem vs an inarticulate, idiotic, low IQ, rubber stamp for Bush, Christian rightist.  I was ABSOLUTELY SURE we could for the first time get a reasonable, intelligent albeit more moderate dem than I am, dem elected to this district. I WAS WRONG.

          There are still districts out here, congressional and senatorial, filled with people who DO NOT GET WHAT BUSH AND CHENEY are doing.

          This is much more complex than blaming our elected officials.  
          We have too many in our populace who BELIEVE the Rush Limbaughs, the Bill O'Reilly's, the Shawn Hannity's of the world.  We have too many in our populace who buy the fear, the hegemony of hate talk.  We have a country being bullied by lies and spin.  And until we can change that, how can we elect true progressives?

          We have at least nearly three decades to UNDO.  But I think we have started.  Sometimes it feels like one step forward, and three steps backward, but we cannot give up.  For me, giving up and having no hope is NOT an acceptable alternative.

      •  I'm with you this time, DH (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bouwerie Boy, GWboosebag

        In the past, I strongly wanted to bring this issue to the forefront, not because I thought it was good to scare people, but just to help people realize what was going on behind the scenes with Cheney.  At the time, there were too many people saying that an attack on Iran was ridiculous, would never happen, etc.  But now, I think it's been more or less accepted that Cheney and others are pushing for this.  It was finally taken seriously.  There's been push back.  Rumsfeld is gone.  People like Wes Clark worked against it.  I'm sure there were many others who did too, in the background.  I personally think Cheney is weakened now, and the threat of him getting his way is less of a concern than it was a year ago.  So there is a need for vigilance, but not panic.

        "So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard

        by joanneleon on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:45:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup, You're Right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bouwerie Boy

          We need to be vigilant and not panic, and telling people there's no hope just means people become passive, which makes it MORE likely that there wouldn't be sufficient opposition if the time comes.  

          This diary is helping Cheney do his work.  I don't think it's intentional at all, but when you're more interested in getting attention and fanning useless outrage than in accomplishing something productive, you can do some dumb and destructive things.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:23:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I somewhat agree... (0+ / 0-)

        ...who was it (I forget) who said that they were going to bomb iran in June of '05, and it still hasn't happened.

        I'm not saying that it COULDN'T happen, because frankly I said the same thing about Ashcroft resigning saying "if he hasn't by now he won't" and look what happened there?

        It could happen, but we shouldn't be saying it definately WILL happen.  There are forces that definately WANT it to happen (someone has to give lieberman his talking points) but we should also not assume that because it hasn't happened YET that it never will.

        It could happen, it could not happen.  We shouldn't get spastic right now.  When Bush starts talking invasion THEN we should be worried.  THEN we should be burning up our congress critter phone lines saying "DO SOMETHING!"

        •  Right (0+ / 0-)

          It's the serial certainty; we WILL attack Iran, and then the Democrats WILL support it, and then something else WILL happen, and...

          Also, as I said upthread, I categorically reject the cynicism of this diary as antithetical to progressive politics.  Without hope, we're nihilists.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 07:41:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh is that what that is? (0+ / 0-)

            I thought nihilists were just people who wore black all the time and quote Neitche. :)

            I won't deal with certainties, however based on past actions, IF Bush decides to attack Iran, Democrats will probably NOT oppose it forcefully (which isn't quite the same as supporting it though it gets a similar outcome), and something really shitty MAY hit the fan as a result of it.

            There, does that make you feel better?

    •  you didn't discuss Admirals (9+ / 0-)

      when many people wondered if placing an admiral for the first time at head of CentComm might be presaging an attack, especially as Adm. Fall is a naval aviator by background.  

      But Fall let people know that he was opposed to such an attack.  

      So the question -   would he resign rather than carry forth such a command?   And if he did, what would that do the Cheney strategy?

      There are not that many yes men left among the competent flag officers.  

      Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

      by teacherken on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:12:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, nice meeting you at PDF (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978, Matt Z

      I was the dude in the Ron Paul shirt, long story on that.

      But here is something to help steer the conversion, We must not bomb 127 (Iranian Rock and Roll).

      Founded in 2001 by a group of young Tehran artists and art students, 127 has found itself at the center of progressive cultural change in Iran. The band's music melds Iranian melodies and jazz with an alternative sound. The band's lyrics tell of the frustrations and joys of life, somehow managing to speak of their cultural time and place, while simultaneous reflecting universal frustrations of isolation, frustration, and hope.

      It goes a long way to show the international youth movement is pretty much on the tip of global communications, while our grandfathers are intent on our collective destruction.

      Rock and roll just might save us all.

      -4.63 -5.28 - Gandhi & I's score!

      by pinche tejano on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:15:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What signal did Dems send just before recess? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unterhausen, averybird, bablhous

      What signal can Bush take on Iran, if he could kick their asses on spying?

      With Congress not even in Session, how do they stand up to Bush Iran war strikes?

      Helll, Bush can quote Hillary for implicit authorization to bomb.

      Nah, Bush is the Commander in Chief, he can act unilaterally to make war, just ask John Yoo.

    •  great panel at YKos, Cenk (0+ / 0-)

      I really enjoyed the panel of ex-Repubs at YKos, Cenk. Too bad it appears that C-SPAN totally ignored it. A lot more people might get a grip on reality if they could see it.

      Oh, and great diary, too. Unfortunately.

      Turn the Mountain West blue! Support Gary Trauner (WY-AL) for Congress!

      by kainah on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:53:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well that's just great. (16+ / 0-)

    You know, Cenk, I listen to you every morning. This morning, like so many others, I heard you launch into another brilliant rant about the evil plans Bush and Cheney have for this poor country of ours, and I wondered if anyone in our feeble party has listened to you or anyone with these opinions.

    The voice in my head says that no, they are deaf and blind and born to follow. They will follow Bush off the cliff, and we will plunge into a totalitarian state.

    What the hell do we do, man?

    The Bush Administration isn't there to create disorder in the world. The Bush Administration is there to preserve disorder in the world.

    by iconoclastic cat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:54:22 AM PDT

    •  nice reference :) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      iconoclastic cat, blueoasis

      havent listened to Rage Against the Machine in ages, must remember to put in the old CD when i get home tonight.

      The world is so cold and the rhythm is your blanket, wrap yourself up in it, if you love it then you'll thank it.

      by Ajax the Greater on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:11:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, that's "Opiate" by Tool. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        Choices always were a problem for you.
        What you need is someone strong to guide you.
        Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow,
        What you need is someone strong to use you..
        Like me,
        Like me.

        If you want to get your soul to heaven,
        Trust in me .
        Dont judge or question.
        You are broken now ,
        But faith can heal you.
        Just do everything I tell you to do.
        Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
        Let me lay my holy hand upon you.

        My gods will
        Becomes me.
        When he speaks out,
        He speaks through me.
        He has needs
        Like I do.
        We both want
        To rape you.

        Jesus christ, why dont you come save my life.
        Open my eyes and blind me with your light
        And your lies.

        The Bush Administration isn't there to create disorder in the world. The Bush Administration is there to preserve disorder in the world.

        by iconoclastic cat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:20:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What can WE do? (6+ / 0-)

    There is always hope as long as we the people take action, instead of lying down and taking it from these assholes.

    I'm not being Pollyanna-ish here; I'm just trying for all of us to survive...and at this point, the audacity of hope and action are all we have.

    Shop for pearls from a Union Democrat - my aunt Maryjane's Sea of Pearls!

    by boofdah on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:54:33 AM PDT

  •  With what army? (24+ / 0-)

    Just curious how an Army that can't meet recruiting goals and is stretched ridiculously thin all over Iraq is going to be able to launch an invasion against a country that has a stronger military than Iraq did under Hussein?

    We'd need a draft, and that's just the thing to get even the most hardcore chickenhawks to break from Bush.

    I'm not saying the articles wrong about Cheney, but I just don't understand how feasible it possibly is.

    Check out my new blog, dedicated to electing our boys in blue: An Enduring Democratic Majority

    by Skulnick on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:54:48 AM PDT

  •  Could this be a false flag (15+ / 0-)

    Get all the papers to say chaney wants an attack and then the president rebukes him.  People are then tricked into thinking bush has half a brain.  The stock market couldn't handle a attack on iran right now.  I think they are far more worried about the dow than anything else since that will directly effect them.

  •  We've been anticipating this for years now. (7+ / 0-)

    I don't think we will attack Iran in the next year. The Cheney bloviating will most likely prove to be just that.

    I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

    by ablington on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:55:14 AM PDT

    •  There is definitely a (4+ / 0-)

      "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon regarding Iran.  

      That's not to say that it won't happen sometime.  But if it does, many of us may miss the warning signs because we've grown inured to "the Iran attack is coming within a MONTH!!!!!!" warnings we've been seeing for 5 years.

      Undecided, due to abundance of good choices. Interestingly, I've never heard a Republican say that.

      by cardinal on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:02:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You bring up an important point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ablington, jessical

      I read with alarm the first New York article by Sey Hersh, and then another, and another, and another.  Meanwhile, nothing has happened.  Yes, they are set up for such an attack.  I definitely believe that.  It doesn't mean they're ever going to pull the trigger.  The truth is we don't know.  And every time I hear an alarm pulled and then nothing happens, it feels like the Boy Who Cried Wolf.  I would think that a real marketing campaign would ensue before they'd hit.  I see no concerted marketing campaign.  And this administration is weak, simply because of low approval ratings.

  •  Scary long-term consequences of hitting Iran (28+ / 0-)

    If attacked, Iran's regime will launch state-sponsored asymmetrical war against us (imagine the damage al-Queda could have done with a middle-sized state like Iran, rather than a backward state like Afghanistan, behind it). The immediate consequences of a successful terrorist attack on the U.S. would be (a) another Patriot Act, and possibly the suspension of the Constitution; and (b) depending on who is in the White House, a retaliatory nuclear strike on Iran.

    I agree with you, Cenk, about Capitol Hill Democrats. If push comes to shove over Iraq, they'll crawl under their desks and go into a fetal position rather than stand up to Mr. 29 Percent. If they caved in to Bush's bluster on FISA, imagine what they'll do when he waves the bloody shirt.

    "I call 'em as I see 'em."--the late Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:57:56 AM PDT

    •  They've already been too weak (10+ / 0-)

      on the threat against Iran.

      They had the opportunity to withhold consent in advance of any attack, and they threw it away.

    •  The scary short-term effects... (7+ / 0-)

      would be $10 a gallon gas.

      Which is why I'm pretty sure this won't happen.

      Disruption of oil supplies is not in Cheney's interest. It's saber-rattling. The opposite of Teddy Roosevelt.

      Scream at the top of your lungs and carry a pea shooter.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

      by kmiddle on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:10:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gasoline went to over $3 a gallon last year, and (5+ / 0-)

        what was the result? Record industry profits! Gas is still hovering around $3, and no one seems to have changed their driving habits much.

        The high price will have the bonus effect of benefiting the ridiculous corn/ethanol industry, you know, the scam that uses as much energy as it produces, a ZERO sum game. Except in this game the zeros that matter are tacked on to millions in rpofits and subsidies to turn those into billions.

        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 Aug 10, 2007 at 09:32:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  People will buy $10 a gallon gas (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, jessical

        You can't get around in the United States without something powered by oil-based fuel: cars, buses, trains (even electric ones - oil-fueled power plants), airplanes, etc.

      •  There's that aspect, too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jessical

        ...Iran, in reality, will hold all the cards in the event of a Iran/US war.

        They can smoke the Green Zone off the planet.

        They can turn on their militias in Southern Iraq.

        They can launch terror attacks against Israel/US/the Gulf States.

        They can put the global economy into melt-down.

        We, OTOH, can either invade (impossible) or start tossing low yield nukes their way (very possible)

        If that happens, I'm on my way to destinations far, far away...like the Yukon

        I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused

        by jds1978 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:27:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Another consequence is an economic meltdown (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous

      of Biblical proportions when oil hits 200 dollars a barrel.
      Also our troops in Iraq will be annhihilated.

      These are reasons why I think this won't happen.

      However if I were Karl Rove and I wanted to catapult the Republicans back into power, what better way to split the Democratic party in two than cajole an obsequious Democratic Congress to go along with another war?  How many of us would abandon the party to go third party aainst the Dem enablers?

      Quite a few, I wager.

      Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

      by Dartagnan on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:33:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is some serious propoganda (10+ / 0-)

    being pumped right now.  The difference between the past and now is the admin is in a corner not only electorally but also time wise.  These guys care more about history than the fucking country.  I do not believe someone is alarmist for not trusting Cheney and
    his motive.

    "We will get fooled again" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:03:31 AM PDT

  •  It's Probably a Good Guess (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annetteboardman, ShaunMcDonnell

    On the off chance you're wrong, I hope people remember this as well.

  •  Since America is supine, look for outside help (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m00nchild, neroden, junta0201

    There still are plenty of conscientious outraged people in the US, but they can't organize at higher levels; the media will not tell the truth, and most of our Congresspeople and Senators lack the courage to fight.

    Sad to say America's best hope at this juncture is to appeal to outside forces to restrain Cheney and Bush. It looks like it's going to require a financial crisis, with Europe and China dumping their dollars. The credit crunch in the US, along with Cheney's attempts to deny everyone else access to the oil of Iraq and Iranian Khuzistan, gives them justification to do this. This will inflict a lot of pain on ordinary folks, but probably less over the long term than a disastrous war on Iran and the blockading of the Hormuz Straits.

    •  EIther that or (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      They can do the responsible thing when a rogue nation attempts to seize control of world resources and exert tyrannical control:

      send troops to Iran and stop any invasion from happening.

      We have become the new Germany.  Who will fight the World War against us.

      Question authoritarianism.

      by m00nchild on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:35:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is the question I sweat out at 4am. n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jds1978, Matt Z

        "We're all in this together" -- Harry Tuttle, legendary plumber

        by bablhous on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:58:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think a blockade is in order (0+ / 0-)

        before then.  Every country in the world, but especially Venezuela and Canada, can refuse to deliver OIL to the US.  Will Cheney threaten to invade Canada and Venezuela too?  Hell yes.  But that's all he could do about it, before he is run out of Washington on a rail.

        Mark Twain -Let me make the superstitions of a nation and I care not who makes its laws or its songs either.

        by Kingsmeg on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Politics Is A Sport (8+ / 0-)

    And only one side comes to play -- the Republicans. And that's why they're able to pimp-slap out side and still get what they want, even with minority status.

    Our elected Democrats are gutless and inept almost beyond comprehension. They're dealt a hand with four aces, and they fold because Karl Rove -- showing 3-9 off-suit -- tells them that doing anything else will result in their demise.

    No one respects a wimp -- on the school playground or in the United States Capitol. And that's why the GOP has been America's default party for the last quarter-century.

    George W. Bush is insane, incompetent and corrupt. But at least he and his GOP team will fight for what they want. That's a lot more than I can say for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

    And now we have Hillary to piss away 2008 with yet another GOP-lite, offend-no-voter, third-way, triangluating, take-no-chances campaign that will inspire absolutely, positively no one.

    Makes me sick to think how hard millions of Americans worked to get the Democrats a Congressional majority.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:06:29 AM PDT

  •  Bush suggests the Iranians get a new government.. (6+ / 0-)

    Interesting...

    "My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

    Iran? ... that could be the USA...
    Could just as easily be said to United States citizens... we need a new government as well!

    Our country can survive war, disease, and poverty... what it cannot do without is justice.

    by mommyof3 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:10:42 AM PDT

  •  Cheney wants to provoke Iran to pivot electorate (7+ / 0-)

    I don't understand where Rove might be in this picture but I suspect they believe that they can provoke Iran to attack by bombing Iranians that are inside OR NEAR the Iraq borders.  They must think that Iran will then be forced to attack US troops thereby invoking the anger of the US public, thereby justifying the war in Iraq and thereby keeping the statusquo.  I do believe that Karl Rove fervently believes that he can pivot the electorate back to the GOP's favor and he'll throw down as many dead bodies as necessary to preserve the supiority of the Conservative American way of life.  

  •  Bush Senior? (0+ / 0-)

    Be carefull what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:11:35 AM PDT

    •  Bush Sr tried & failed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Thinking, blue vertigo
      Bush I opposed W's invasion of Iraq; this was conveyed through articles by GHWB's two closest advisers, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker.  Their dire warnings had the same effect as Baker's Iraq Study Group - none.

      As W says, "I serve a higher father."  This apparently means he's taking advice from somebody who's high all the time.

      "I don't think I intended to break the law." - Monica Goodling

      by Bob Love on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:36:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Only Reason to Bomb Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, Kingsmeg, jds1978

    Is to do it.

    I think Sen. Clinton would make a very good president.

    by bink on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:11:56 AM PDT

    •  Existential Scream (8+ / 0-)

      I think Cheney is so violent because it is an existential scream of some sort ...

      He has spent his whole life trying to accumulate power.  Now that he has it, it all seems illusory, even though he is likely the most powerful man in the world.

      The only place he can go to feel powerful is to destroy more and more.

      That is why we might bomb Iran.

      It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.  It has to do with one man's insane need to torture, kill and destroy.

      I think Sen. Clinton would make a very good president.

      by bink on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:13:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WaPo series on Cheney: to mislead us??? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raybin, Matt Z, mommyof3, rrheard, junta0201

    was that series meant to disarm us?

    was the intent to make us think that Cheney would lose power and influence with daylight shed on his operation?

    or even worse, was it to expose the truth and, seeing us not impeach the son-of-a-bitch, make way for the next step: FISA, crumbling markets, and then Iran.

    good god... i can't believe the way i think now... and i hate them for it

    "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

    by pfiore8 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:12:02 AM PDT

  •  There could be less planning? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raybin, junta0201

    OMG we're screwed!

    Of course we've been screwed for the last 7 years.

    You've nailed it, of course.

    Thanks for just laying it out for all to see.

    "Mankind must remember that peace is not God's gift to his creatures. It is our gift to each other." Elie Wiesel

    by witchamakallit on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:14:31 AM PDT

  •  If the Dem's were going to try to stop an attack (12+ / 0-)

    on IraN, then you would be hearing them talkig about it now. Let's listen:

    crickets, crickets, crickets

    That's right. In order to stop a government action, one needs to be out in front of it BEFORE it happens. To wait until after said action has occured is TOO LATE.

    Cheney, BTW, doesn't have to convince Bush to do it, as Cheney himself will order it. He just has to convince Bush that it will make him look good, that his "legacy" will be even more polished. Cheney still needs his puppet so that the American people don't have to be bothered to actually be honest with themselves.

    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 Aug 10, 2007 at 09:14:36 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi was in (19+ / 0-)

    Stamford, CT yesterday.

    Pelosi urged to impeach Bush

    STAMFORD — Two dozen people armed with placards and petitions turned out today to beseech House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to push for impeachment of President Bush.
    But Pelosi, a Democratic congressman from California, avoided the demonstrators by slipping into Il Falco restaurant through a back entrance cordoned off by police.

    "She doesn't like opposition," said Marilyn Bonoff of Stamford, one of those demanding that proceedings be launched to force Bush from office. "We are the people she represents. For her to dodge us is just not right."

    Secretary, Connecticut for Lieberman Party

    by Sprinkles on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:17:08 AM PDT

  •  Those of us so troubled by (5+ / 0-)

    the state of our nation, the grim reality of the depth and complexity of the problems should examine the trail and recognize the likes of Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Mitch McConnell and Donald Rumsfeld as equally guilty parties in this quagmire. And then I ask myself, where were the Democratic leaders and why didn't they yell louder? It's as if they spent six years napping. Other than a few like Senator Feingold, where were the Senate Democrats when our system became so infected and ineffective?  

    "I had planned to buy that book The Power of Positive Thinking, then I realized, what good could that do?" author unknown

    by OrdinaryGal on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:17:50 AM PDT

  •  World War III (17+ / 0-)

    It is no accident that the Russians are making bomber runs in the Pacific and off the coast of Alaska.

    Oh, and taking pot shots at Georgia.

    or why China's pet general in Pakistan is no longer taking Afghan President Karzai's phone calls.

    It's a direct message to Washington -- You guys are so overextended. Iran. Don't go there.

    The truth is not a hit piece.

    by cskendrick on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:22:56 AM PDT

    •  Looks like we may get WWIII and a Depression (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, neroden, Matt Z

      all at once, if what I'm reading about the stock market is any indication (and of course we're in debt to China over our ears - and they can call that debt at any time.)  

      And no FDR to save us.  Not an FDR in sight.  Al Gore?  He isn't interested in politics these days.  Pity that.

      I guess this is our national karma finally coming home to roost.  Was it the use of the A-bomb in WWII?  Or all those years of covert CIA operations?  Or perhaps this payback for the 'me generation?'  Or just our many years of being rich, arrogant and domineering assholes.  

      I guess it doesn't matter now.  Fasten your seatbelts.

      Remember, remember the twelfth of December, the hanging chad, treason and plot; I know of no reason why vote-counting treason should ever be forgot.

      by feduphoosier on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:33:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No fate but what you make (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        XOVER, wu ming, jds1978, Matt Z

        We are seeing the the unwilling end of a series of American institutions that simply cannot keep up on their own terms with the rest of the world, and once they sort it through will realize that the brightest future, maddening as it must seem to them, is closer to how we do things here in the netroots than how they do them inside the beltway.

        And it will be okay.

        Everything is going to be fine, people just need to take stock of what their opportunities are and apply themselves to making them work.

        Rather, they will be fine in the sense that there will be much work to do, and there will be widespread support that said work gets done.

        Parts of the next two centuries will not be any fun at all; we are coming to terms with the possibility that the Earth may not be very supportive of life thanks to what we have done.

        We may even experience a massive dieback in human population in our own lifetimes.

        That's not going to be any fun at all if it happens.

        But I believe that there are two courses that the advanced societies will experience -- a shift toward utmost tyranny, or one toward the third great transformation in freedom -- toward truly mass participation politics.

        I think it's coming, and it's going to work wonders when the world needs them the most.

        The truth is not a hit piece.

        by cskendrick on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:44:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There'll be an FDR (0+ / 0-)

        It's a pity we don't have one readymade, but seriously, when things get bad enough leaders arise.

        We just have to make sure the right kind of leaders get backed.  We're going to face a bunch of wannabe Hitlers too.

        -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

        by neroden on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:45:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Attacking Iran (11+ / 0-)

    ... would have the effect of setting the US agenda in the ME for the foreseeable future, in a way that is to the liking of the neocons. Even when they are swept from power in 08, the frame will still be Chaos and War. The worst consequences will be felt during the subsequent Democratic administration, and the inevitable costs and humiliations can then be blamed on the Dems.

    Compare to their acknowledged strategy of intentionally creating huge deficits as a way of preventing investment in social programs even when Democrats are in power.

    •  DBunn please Diary these observations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jessical, jds1978

      This is exactly what is going on.

      Neocons have thrown in the towel and know Dems will control COngres adn Presidency. so they are engaging in a scortched earth policy and planting all sorts of poison pills.

      ADn yes, Clinton was hamstriung by Republican debt. Bankrupt government as a means to cripple it.

  •  Cenk,... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue vertigo

    ...I've been saying for a while now that considering all the damage ShrubCo has done to our country, and the amazing extent to which they're doing it, I'm surprised that few people think that they'll simply give up their posts in Jan, '09. They have far too much to lose...but then again, who's gonna stop them?

    "Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth." Mondaugen's Law

    by Newton Snookers on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:26:56 AM PDT

    •  As Long As Their Party Holds WH and 34 In Senate (8+ / 0-)

      they don't need much else. The specific Cheney admin does not need to remain.

      Our system has never had the ability to address such high crimes, and it's weaker now than since the Articles of Confederation.

      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 Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:31:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Digby called it "The 34 Senator gambit" (13+ / 0-)
        And she was right. The Cheney-Bush administration has exposed a serious weakness in our Constitutional system of government. So long as 34 Senators are willing to support the President no matter what he does, then, short of a coup, he can pretty much do whatever he wants until the next election.

        That weakness has always been there, but we've never had anyone take advantage of it so ruthlessly until now.

        •  An overlying legalistic & unrealsitic observation (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mftalbot, nicta, Jlukes, jessical, blue vertigo

          The 34 gambit is a crock of shit.

          If there were millions of people in the street - shut the machine down - things would change.

          If every newspaper and TV station vehemently opposeed war, things would change.

          If Wall Street shut down, things would change.

          If every university in the country walked out, things would change.

          If religious leaders came together and denouced war, things would change.

          Hel, if te NFL adn Baseball Players Assc. walked out, things would change.

          We do have other institutions and power centers than the Senate.

          •  All those things could do (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adigal, jessical, blue vertigo
            would be to put pressure on the Senators to change their minds. We have other institutions, but the Senate is the only one that has the power to remove the President from office.

            And in any case, I don't see any of the things you listed happening.... Do you?

            •  No, unfortunately I don't see it either (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              labouchet, jessical, blue vertigo

              But I haven't given up hope.

              I wrote that to suggest that there are otehr tools we can use - folks tend to get bogged down in the narrowest adn wekest tool: electoral tactics.

              We need to expand the focus and start doing direct action and civil disobedience.

              •  DailyKos does ELECTORAL POLITICS. You object? (0+ / 0-)

                Are you saying that DailyKos is a false flag operation by the CIA to distract the revolutionaries from their normal populace-stirring operations, like the ones that forced FDR to give the population a few sops?

                I'm reading "Legacy of Ashes" and it's horrifying how a few dedicated liars in the clandestine services can hoodwink even honorable and intelligent leaders.

                As hope for activist politicians dies, and as I cast about for alternatives, the ballot box recedes, and the ammo box comes into view.

                Wouldn't it be peculiar if the NRA turns out to be the savior of the american democracy?

                I've always wondered about the Second Amendment.

                Accountability: the ultimate Progressive Value...

                by ormondotvos on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:13:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read Chapter 5 of "Legacy of Ashes" last nite! (0+ / 0-)

                  Very good book so far.

                  No, I wasn't making those types of sweeping claims or insinuations - although at times I must admit that my gut shares your concerns.

                  I merely was suggesting the need to do things differently in hopes of being more effective.

                  May I also suggest reading "The Cultural Cold War" by Frances Saunders and the Trilogy by Chalmers Johnson.

          •  That's a mighty big IF expecting the Corporate (0+ / 0-)

            Media to suddenly change its spots.

            They have been working with the neocons for years now, helping to get Clinton impeached, helping Bush Jr. to win the "00 election and they have been actively keeping him in office ever since.

            IMHO, the citizens of the US need to declare war upon the Corporate Media and either force it to change its tune or find some NEW means of concencus-making opinion if any mass movements are to be reliably hoped for.

        •  This is simply not true (0+ / 0-)

          it takes money to run the government. The democrats have the power to shut them down if they want to. I will not hold my breath.

          "If standing up for the Constitution and rule of law is a "stunt," then I'll take it."

          by Jlukes on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:02:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  As long as AIPAC (4+ / 0-)

    calls the shots on our foreign policy, we will not be able to gather up ANYBODY to impose sanity.

  •  You Are Not Wrong, You Are Right (4+ / 0-)

    We are going to war with Iran...with catastrophic consequences. It is as clear as the pores on Dick Cheney's nose. The stock market is behaving like a cat before a thunderstorm. Something terrible is up and they know it.

    We have spoken. Nobody listened. In all the ages, great democracies end. Oh, ours will limp along awhile longer as we will pretend to be governed by a Constitution. But Cenk is right. The game is over. Democrats will win in '08 but will disintigrate into warring factions upon arrival. There will always be a left, a right and a center. In our age, the great battle was lost to the sophists who populate the right.  

  •  All of you that are downplaying cenk's warning (8+ / 0-)

    should keep in mind:

    We already have special ops on the ground in IraN.

    We technically are already at war with IraN.

    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 Aug 10, 2007 at 09:34:33 AM PDT

  •  Prepare for Bush's version of... (3+ / 0-)

    a Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

    by VA6thDem on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:39:53 AM PDT

  •  If the attack on Iran happens (2+ / 0-)

    There will never be another GOP.
    The American public does not want a third war front. Do not let your self be fooled into thinking that the public is totally unaware of what is going on.
    They are not.

    A pity we don't have the votes to defend the Constitution.-me

    by RElland on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:40:54 AM PDT

    •  Could turn out to be cold comfort RElland. (5+ / 0-)
      •  Short term, too many innocents will die. (3+ / 0-)

        Cold comfort indeed.
        But think about the fact that for a number of years people have been told that Iranians, the people like the US. It's the government that hates us, not the people.
        Innocent Iranians die and it will set off waves of sympathy which will destroy Cheney and his ilk in the end.
        I'm sorry to sound cruel about it, but at this stage, we aren't going to see a massive uprising by the American people for a peaceful end. Not until there is a leader who can speak for all of us and not just in terms of 'Vote for ME and I'll give you THIS', attitudes.

        A pity we don't have the votes to defend the Constitution.-me

        by RElland on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:47:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  you would think, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, Kingsmeg, blueoasis, jasmint53

      but funny...I don't see much evidence of it.

      Even having just had their duly-electeds enable bush/cheney/gonzo's warrantless wire-tapping on them, for the most part the public-at-large is happily sitting on their hands

      •  You mean after years (0+ / 0-)

        of being told that hackers, credit card companies, internet buying sites, and gods alone know what else have all been taking their information and selling it off to advertisers, consumer info organizations, and who knows what they should get pissed when the government, the incompetent government who can't even fight a war properly is now going to the do the same thing they've already been doing for years?

        Think.
        What has the news been about for freaking decades, since the 1980's. The consumer's entire existence has been known since the advent of credit cards and card ATM and readers in grocery stores. The public knows THAT, and has accepted it because nothing has happened beyond a new advertisement sent in their mail.
        They already are immunized to that point.
        Why react when nothing has seemed to come of it?
        Have large numbers of people just disappeared from their neighbors homes? No.
        Have friends gone missing after a tirade about the government?
        No.
        Have they felt someone looking at them as though they are traitors and are being constantly watched OPENLY?
        No.
        Is it wrong that there are no reactions?
        Yes.
        But is it understandable?
        Yes.

        A pity we don't have the votes to defend the Constitution.-me

        by RElland on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:44:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If people can't fill up their SUV's, and if... (0+ / 0-)

          their houses and/or their 401k's materially decline, you'll see a sea change in public opinion overnight.

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

          by RFK Lives on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:52:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not even (0+ / 0-)

          calling it "right" or "wrong" and I didn't ask that Q:

          It boggles the mind becuz I do think at this point in time that the implications of big-brother-blatantly spying on you at the hands of AG-AG when even the courts have said, "nono", should be way more apparent than feeding one's info into to one's friendly gas-pump over the years...of one's own lazy-volition.

  •  I would hope that the first bomb that drops (8+ / 0-)

    would cause massive civil unrest in the US.  I'm talking torches and pitchforks on PA Ave.  It's obvious the law and the co-equal branches of government can't stop them.  So the last hope will be the people.

    I think such massive chaos on the US would also signal the rest of the world that our country is being held hostage by a gang of psycopaths and we don't want any of this to happen.

    rubberstamp republican or capitulating democrat? Shotgun or bottle of sleeping pills? Decisions decisions.

    by pullbackthecurtain on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:40:56 AM PDT

    •  I would hope so too... (5+ / 0-)

      but, at the very least, it remains to be seen.

    •  If Iran kills oil distribution from the Gulf... (4+ / 0-)

      we might see people in the streets.  I can't see another reason for it unless millions are made homeless by mortgage defaults.  Unless it is made deeply personal, Americans won't react.

      •  respectfully disagree (5+ / 0-)

        I don't believe the lack of outrage or the lack of public protest is due to apathy on the part of the American people.  I believe it's due to fragmentation of the protest movement (too many messages, too many groups not working together) along with a leadership vacuum.  

        I think the #1 problem right now is there's no one leading the pack in public outrage.  That's why the only protests are currently made up exclusively of politically active people.  If someone isn't a regular reader of a lefty blog or a member of ANSWER or MoveOn then chances are they feel isolated in their disgust with the current state of american government and have no one to look to for inspiration or support in voicing that opinion.

        That's also part of the problem with DKos.  It's preaching to the choir.  I'm not trying to be acidic to the site or anything and I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done a single damn thing w.r.t protest but the reason I haven't is because there is no one leading.

        Sean Penn has been a great asset in speaking out against the crimes of this administration and I think he could do a lot of good by stepping up as a public leader.  

        Until a leader steps up, people be left without an outlet to act upon, WesClark Jr. and Cenk will continue to watch their brilliant ENOUGH campaign fail to reach critical mass, and MoveOn will keep relying on the same people to show up to the same protests continuously re-packaged in new wrapping.

        I'm participating in Iraq moratorium and I'm anxiously looking for an ENOUGH group to start in my city but I think these things will continuously fall short without a strong leader that can get tremendous public recognition.

        rubberstamp republican or capitulating democrat? Shotgun or bottle of sleeping pills? Decisions decisions.

        by pullbackthecurtain on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:45:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We need a UNIFIED OPPOSITION (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          You are right.  What we need is something that can unite many/most of the opposition groups into a UNIFIED OPPOSITION campaign that doesn't attempt to be all things to all people but simply one thing - a focus point for

          a unified opposition platform, whatever that might be, that they can agree to cooperate/collaborate on.

          HAD ENOUGH? Tis a fearful thing to love that what death may touch or time may change.

          by walkingdeer on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:04:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Three jobs and 300 channels (0+ / 0-)

            Why isn't there more of a protest movement?

            Because people are working three low-paying jobs to pay their bills and the interest on their credit cards and mortgages... and when they get home, they're too tired and stressed to turn to much except the 300 channels available on the giant TVs... Narcotizing electronics being the only commodity whose price keeps  dropping.

            (But yeah, the general low effectiveness/competence level of the organized effort against the war, combined with Democratic spinelessness, ain't helping either.)

            "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

            by Hudson on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:35:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, all those who lose their homes... (0+ / 0-)

        ... from bad mortgages can join the Army and the Guard to get off the streets and make ends meet.

        We'll need the soldiers, since things are so stretched already. Perfect timing!

        Patriotically yours,

        The Grand Old Party

        ...............
        /snark
        ...............

        "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

        by Hudson on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:31:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not likely (4+ / 0-)

      The mainstream media would rush to support the violence and marginalize anti-war sentiment again.

      Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

      by pontechango on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:02:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  mainstream media (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        One Pissed Off Liberal

        has a strong influence for sure but it's not all-powerful.  I for one have hope that Americans can one day turn on them in anger for all their lies.

        rubberstamp republican or capitulating democrat? Shotgun or bottle of sleeping pills? Decisions decisions.

        by pullbackthecurtain on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:29:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If people can no longer fill up their SUVs... (0+ / 0-)

          and if their homes and/or their 401k's drop in value overnight, all bets are off.  All of Timmy's horses and all of Tweety's men can't convince the public that it's safe to go back to watching "Idol."

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

          by RFK Lives on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:47:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  dream on (0+ / 0-)

      the only way the people would riot is if gas hits $10/gallon and interest rates get jacked up massively as a result so that people have to stop spending because they can't afford it, even on credit.

      That remains a possibility, but I would not pin my hopes on that. Most likely, Bush will just be able to lie his way into making the people believe the expansion of the war into Iran was somehow justified.

  •  Why Wes Clark? (9+ / 0-)

    We need General Clark in the Oval Office setting policy...even moreso if what you say is true, Cenk
    ...YES! most especially after the fact.

    steel youselves America

  •  PRESSURE, baby (9+ / 0-)

    Until the pwned D-Congress steps up and impeaches, the whole sick puppet show will continue.

    Cheney is not a human being.  Look at who he is, where he's from, and what he's done.  JFC, I can't BELIEVE America allows this shit to continue.

    the blue sea seethes with reason

    by howth of murph on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:46:12 AM PDT

  •  Best diary I've read here in a while (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, wu ming, blueoasis, Mary2002

    I hit on a somewhat similar theme regarding a different issue here, but rather less cogently explained, I am embarrassed to admit.

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." --Edward Abbey

    by Raybin on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:51:05 AM PDT

  •  Hillary Clinton can go to hell (8+ / 0-)

    She is the worst candidate for this very reason.

    http://www.senate.gov/...

    I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have.

    Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

    by pontechango on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:52:18 AM PDT

  •  Can we please stop (5+ / 0-)

    with the "incompetency" remarks.  These people are getting what they want, even if Condoleeza and Bush offer up a few squeaks of opposition to Cheney.

    I'm in the middle of reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."  After learning about the different administrations [both dem and repub] that engaged in illegal aggression against other countries, I have to conclude that our countrymen don't give a rat's butt about illegal aggression.  In fact, they generally love it.

    I guess that's what happens when you're descended from people who exterminated the indigenous population of America.  

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:53:56 AM PDT

    •  Oh, come on. Are we Daleks? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978
      I'm not descended from people who "exterminated" anybody, and I certainly hope you're not implying that the natives were living in Eden before the white men set their filthy, defiling boots on the sacred soil.

      A friend loaned me her copy of "Economic Hit Man." I haven't had the stomach to do more than glance at it.

      •  i's a great book, but. . . (0+ / 0-)

        it doesn't support the generalization that darrah made.  It explains in more detail what we all suspect - that some US corporations and some parts of the government have engaged in policies very detrimental to the rest of the world.

        "New World Orders" is the exciting new novel of global warming and conspiracy by Ed Parrot and Jason Derrig. Visit www.edwardgtalbot.com for more information.

        by eparrot on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:00:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately, I knew that already. At the (0+ / 0-)

          end of James Webb's "A Country Such as This," one character says of the US, "We aren't the source of evil in the world." I wish I were as sure of that now as in my idealistic youth. I asked Webb about it in person some years ago and I don't think he's so sure, either.

        •  Read "The Secret History of The American Empire" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mary2002

          Perkins' new book - I didn't like it nearly as much as "Economci Hit Man" but it does go into the histroical genocide by US in a way that supports Darrah's comments.

    •  a nitpick (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme, bablhous, mamamedusa

      Though I agree with your first sentence, I think the last one needs some revision.  2.5 million native people are still very much here, and a little irritable about being viewed as past history.

      "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

      by sarac on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:21:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  2000 Debates (6+ / 0-)

    During the 2000 debates when DimWit said he wouldn't do any "nation building" I read the lying body language... and journaled that night that if he were elected 'he will invade Iraq to finish his daddy's war.'  I further journaled that the country would go into a recession (housing market and foreign countries selling off dollars ring any bells?).

    I assumed - quite wrongly! - that people would never vote for such a stupid doofus, even as I couldn't believe how the political bobble heads "interpreted" his incoherent blather as somehow 'winning' the debate.  I've just never, ever gotten over that stunning conclusion on their part, and it was at that moment I lost faith in Lamestream Media.

    And now the same lies and spin seem to be leading us to another war.  How it will be paid for and who in the under-staffed US military will fight yet another war is not, of course, mentioned....

    [Shaking head in befuddled amazement....]

    "War is contempt for life." To Youth/Nordahl Grieg

    by NonnyO on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:55:23 AM PDT

    •  The 2000 debates are what began my transofrmation (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO, jds1978, Matt Z

      ... away from the Republican Party.

      I talk about it here:

      http://youtube.com/...

      •  :-) I saw that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        I saw the video before when you posted something about YKos.  Inspirational...!

        I've always been a Democrat, but at the moment I'm disheartened by most of them.  Kucinich has my support because he's authored H. Res. 333 - and in what little I've seen and read of his positions, so far his rhetoric matches what I think about things.

        Well, I'm disheartened by all politicians who aren't openly advocating impeachment.

        If they don't impeach, they'll be setting a precedent for criminals to inhabit the office of president and vice-president for centuries to come.  We need to go back to the balance of power as laid out in the Constitution.

        The one noticeable thing about all articles and diaries that call for impeachment is the fact that no one is even suggesting names for who could be a caretaker president and vice president 'when' impeachment is accomplished.  I think that task may have to be left to bloggers to vet potential candidates for those offices until the '08 election.

        If you aren't already planning on watching tonight, Bill Moyers Journal is rebroadcasting the impeachment show they did a few weeks ago with John Nichols and Bruce Fein.  I'm hoping they do a follow-up to the show in the future and mention H. Res. 333....

        "War is contempt for life." To Youth/Nordahl Grieg

        by NonnyO on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:57:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  He didn't lie. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      samfish

      I see smoking ruins and debris aplenty, but no rebuilding efforts.

      "...and it's here the lonely say that the heart has got to open in a fundamental way." --Leonard Cohen, "Democracy"

      by maralenenok on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:35:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey Nonny Nonny! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO

      Wow, you journaled that that night?

      I couldn't stand Bush at the time, but I didn't see Iraq coming that far out. Congratulations, NonnyO, for whatever it's worth you are more perspicacious than I.

      45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

      by dconrad on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:04:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I did.... (0+ / 0-)

        Thank you!  :-)

        In 2000 I became a political junkie because I spent a lot of time in bed after back surgery.  I went on quite a rant during those debates.

        Several years before that I'd been a non-traditional college student and the honors seminar I was in met for the first class the night Congress voted approval for the invasion of Iraq by Bush 41, and the class topic was "media manipulation."

        Thanks to that class and literary criticism classes, I learned to deconstruct hyperbole down to "the essence of truth," so to speak.  I can distinguish facts from opinions, which is why I find political bobble head shows so disgusting (aside from the fact I can't stand the interruptions and people talking over each other all the time; no one seems to listen to anyone else).  Many opinions about a lot of red herrings and manufactured "issues" - but lacking in facts and elementary truths.

        Suffice to say, I find it easy - to the point of boredom now - to deconstruct what Georgie and Dickie and their talking heads say.  It's like peeling layers of an onion (layers being the lies and hyperbole) to get to the center.

        I have never been duped by the lies and find it impossibly difficult to believe that both Congress Critters and Lamestream Media have believed any of what either one of them say - and worse, have tried to convince all of us that we should believe the lies.

        "War is contempt for life." To Youth/Nordahl Grieg

        by NonnyO on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:35:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Do you know why evil wins? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, wu ming, blueoasis, dconrad

    Because good is DUMB.

    I really, really enjoyed the Shrub on radio yesterday, saying that if the Iraq government really is interested in good relations with Iran then he'll (the Shrub) have to sit them down and have a heart to heart with them (read get in line or I'll shoot you in the head) because he (the Shrub) really doesn't believe that Iran is a force for good (paraphrased) in the region.

    Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

    by angrytoyrobot on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:55:47 AM PDT

  •  The article actually made me feel hopeful. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidW in SF, sarac, vox humana

    Far from feeling hopeless, the McClatchy article actually makes me feel better about the situation.  The reason?  The article is SKEPTICAL.  They describe the Administration’s case against Iran as a

       

    growing drumbeat of allegations

    and

    a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.

    They question the motivations of the campaign:

    It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.

    It also question the evidence brought forth:

    Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran . . .  is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.

    This article did not just feed us the Administration’s bull.  It reported on what they said, then they questioned it and got feedback from other sources.  That is a ray of hope.

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:56:18 AM PDT

  •  Congress won't stop the attack on Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blue vertigo, jds1978

    They have other important business to take care of....

    Stopping the attack on Iran would absorb all their energies. And they have important legislation to pass. Stopping the attack on Iran would be too trying for the American people.

    So many guns...so few brains. --Philip Marlowe

    by Castine on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:57:03 AM PDT

  •  Hell, the bombs will be in the air (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, jds1978

    even before the Congress or We The People are informed... It will be a DONE DEAL and we won't have a chance to stop it...

  •  Attack Iran? Be ready for... (5+ / 0-)
    1. the swarm that will meet US forces in Iraq.  We will really see what its like to not have enough troops in Iraq. We'll also find out how many shoulder SAMs are in Iraq. Even our cooks and orderlies will be fighting. The so-called Green Zone will be renamed Ground-Zero. Baghdad will be like one big Khe Sanh.
    1. Iranian Sunburn missiles will be flying around the Gulf like bottle rockets on the 4th of July. The trivia question will be name the last time a US Navy capital ship was lost to enemy action - the Indianapolis in WWII?
    1. Israel will threatened from all sides - West Bank, Gaza strip, Lebanon

    What else?  Anyway, attacking Iran is too heavily weighted to nightmare scenarios.

    "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

    by VA6thDem on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:57:34 AM PDT

    •  Get ready... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978, LillithMc, Kickemout

      ...for oil at $200/bbl+ and gasoline at $9 when Iran retaliates by closing the Straits of Hormuz and/or sinking tanker traffic there.

      There will be riots in the streets (in the US!) if something like this goes down. The administration will literally risk civil order if they attack Iran. There literally might be a higher probability that the Iranian government will survive the attack than that the US government will.

    •  What else? The global financial system will break (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LillithMc

      down. It is already under significant stress due to the credit meltdown. A new war with poor public support and poor preparation by a grotesquely unpopular administration on an oil-producing nation will send the rich scurrying into guns and gold. Look for a second Great Depression.

  •  Holy crap, Warren P. Strobel wrote this! (5+ / 0-)

    He was one of the few journalists that nailed the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War.  This is a very credible source.

    Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

    by pontechango on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:59:22 AM PDT

  •  I couldn't believe that Bush pulled out the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Simplify

    inpectors in Iraq, then started his invasion. Never thought that the news media would be the cheerleaders for this insanity.

    Honestly I would like to believe this is just a diversionary smoke , but with these incompetant fools and their willing accomplices , it is impossible to say they won't do it.  

  •  Dispair is one of the weapons (8+ / 0-)

    that this administration tries to deploy against its opponents.

    I know it is hard to keep optimism high, but by buying into the idea that we are powerless, we make ourselves powerless.

    Check my sig line. Not living in fear means more than just about physical harm. We have to be fearless in fighting those that would use the fear of their potential actions to control us as well.

    Don't despair, do not morn, Organize!

    If you live in fear, then the worst that can happen to you has already happened. Will You live in fear?

    by Something the Dog Said on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:00:31 AM PDT

    •  Right on. Powerlessness will stop us (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Something the Dog Said

      in our tracks. We need to keep thinking and
      keep acting. And I "hope" that Cenk is wrong.

    •  In my nearly 7 decades (7+ / 0-)

      (with both feet planted firmly on this earth, ie; no chicken-little here), I find that I am not only more pissed-off than is humanly possible, but also yes, terrified or more aptly, effectively terrorized, by this administration as well as our sit-on-their-hands-impotent congress.

      Yes, I'm afraid after all these years that I'm now living in fear. ...as never before. Sorry but reality bites

      •  There is nothing, NOTHING in the last 7 decades (5+ / 0-)

        that compares with what this cabal is doing now.  The young people on this thread lack the life experience some of us have.  Even at the worst times, WWII and during Nixon's Watergate or Vietnam, there wasn't the power given to the Executive Branch (now all branches) that we have now.  Unitary Executive Privilege is not a theory anymore.

        I'm trying with desperation to share this with our young voters who I know, because they either have a cynical view of politics (there's nothing we can do) so they sit on their duffs doing nothing, OR, they have this crazy notion that we oldies are going to fix it for them. It is going to take ALL OF US to fight this regime we have running our own country via Dick, Gonzo and Dubya, et al.

        Had a young man pull over when I was standing at my corner with my ENOUGH signs. He wanted to know more about what it really meant.  After I discussed it with him, he said "How can we change this?"  I said, "BY STANDING HERE WITH ME... it's a start! Why are you waiting for older people like me to do it for you? Bring your friends to this corner next Sunday and let the world know you have had enough and your future is in jeopardy!"  He agreed and said I was right, and drove way.  But the next Sunday he wasn't there standing with me.

        Scared?  Hell yeah.  I see so many people taking too much for granted, even among our Dems. Don't get me started about the Dem Reps!

        I worry.

        •  Yes and Their Technological Powers Are Close To (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, KayCeSF, Sybil Liberty, jds1978

          those of gods, compared to any previous time.

          No feudal lord could ever fabricate and issue society its common daily reality and mainstream discourse, as realtime mass media allow today.

          No police state could know the unfolding will of the people before the people themselves begin to form consensus, as today's government and business can.

          We're off the tracks of history, a full decade into science fiction futurism.

          --And we're almost ready to begin redesigning the human species.

          Really, the most colossally stupid and dangerous time in history to be concentrating power.

          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 Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:45:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  the nuclear option (6+ / 0-)

    on the civil disobedience/protest front is General Strike.

    The loudest possible sound that can be created in America is the deafening silence of cash registers not ringing.

    Not just for a day, but for as long as it takes.

    And don't snivel to me about "hardships".

    don't always believe what you think...

    by claude on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:03:18 AM PDT

  •  $6.00 a gallon here we come. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lisastar

    Never give in. Never, never, never, never. - Winston Churchill.

    by Night Owl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:05:14 AM PDT

  •  The nuclear red herrnig (4+ / 0-)

    This is all about the nuclear red herring.

    Nukes are a sterling excuse to invade because people don't understand them.  What they understand is movies of mushroom clouds, flashes of light, buildings being reduced to rubble in blast waves.

    What they don't understand is how tremendously difficult they are, and how easy it is to bring a nuclear weapons production program to its knees with the intel and conventional weapons we have today.

    Let's say for the sake of argument that Iran is months from rolling out a functional nuclear warhead.  They are doing so from a reinforced bunker; where that bunker is located is irrelevant, but we know where they are and that is the point.

    What do you need to do to stop Iran from (1) finishing the job, and (2) secreting the weapon away someplace for use?

    The snowjob most Americans have already swallowed is that you've got to invade that country and change their regime.  You've got to get rid of the Ahmadenijad threat before you can neutralize his nukes.  And it's bullshit, and it's the kind of bullshit that will get us into a cataclysmic land war in Iran.

    The truth is that if you want to neutralize that threat, you do two things: you neutralize the personnel with special forces (nuclear scientists sleep, eat, and live someplace -- and yes, we know who they are), and you make the site inaccessible with conventional bombs.  Crater the access roads, crater the bunker entrance.  When they rebuild it, crater it again.  Who do you think wants to come to work there, even if they can find a way?  It is truly this simple, and you should be skeptical of someone telling you it's not.

    Please keep in mind that I am not advocating we start bombing nuclear production facilities in Iran.  I am trying to break down a very damaging assumption.

    "Don't you dare speak to us like we work for you." - Ben Harper

    by The Termite on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:05:27 AM PDT

  •  I haven't read all 188+ comments, so (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, Jlukes, Pandoras Box

    please forgive me if this is a repeat>

    I agree that Iran would probably be no match for us....but:

    1. our military is VERY stretched with all the shit going on in Irag - people and weapon systems
    1. Iran has some pretty BIG friends...China, perhaps...Russia, maybe....

    RECIPE for DISASTER is an UNDERSTATEMENT.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think...

    by left my heart on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:07:02 AM PDT

  •  You know what- let Bush and Cheney do it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rflowers, Jlukes, golconda2

    Really, I've had enough. Nothing will seal the fate of the GOP more quickly than this kind of over-reaching.

    Our military will probably break and we'll suffer internationally for years; but if it means the long term destruction of the GOP, why fight this?

    Maybe I'm just fatigued, but if this is what it takes to wake up the country then maybe it's something we need to consider. And let's be honest, our Democratic leaders aren't going to stop him; and if they can't, how are we supposed to?

    I'm tired today; sorry for the maudlin.

    •  Seriously? (9+ / 0-)

      I understand you're tired, but please remove your "political" hat for a moment and put on your "human being" hat.

      Why fight this?  Because of all the innocent lives that will be lost and the even greater hatred that will be fomented around the world.  And that's just assuming it doesn't escalate out of control.  If THAT happens we could be looking at a full-scale religious conflict.

      That's why we fight. It might be futile.  But that's why we fight.

      •  I completely agree, but... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jlukes, Pandoras Box, Matt Z, golconda2

        The tragically sad fact of the matter is until the country embraces the disaster that the republicans have created, they will continue to let them walk us all to the cliff's edge.

        The thought of the horror's that await the average family caught in the midst of a war are not lost on me in the least. But I think it's painfully clear that we cannot 'politcally' raise the conciousness of the country; as a nation we must feel the pain before the body of the people reacts.

        I would love to think we could stop this madness; I'm truly not convinced we could, and to prevent future attorcities I'm not sure we should.

        I'm sorry if this makes me look apathetic or callous; forgive my fatigue.

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    patriot spear

    According to McClatchy Newspapers Dick Cheney is on the precipice of convincing Bush to attack Iran. Diplomacy has gone nowhere because Cheney set a precondition that could not be met (stop enriching uranium before we negotiate over whether you should enrich uranium). There are almost no competent pro-diplomacy advocates inside the administration. All the generals who disagreed have been replaced. And the so-called opposition party is the biggest set of push-overs in the history of this country.

    The above paragraph is the foundation of a good diary, unfortunately this isn't it.

    Impeachment is not an option ........It is a duty.

    by stevej on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:11:03 AM PDT

  •  Jim Webb had a proposal that Congress (4+ / 0-)

    sign off on any Iran attack before it happens.
    What happened to that?

  •  I'm skeptical that Bush will go to war with Iran (4+ / 0-)

    I think all the administration's Iran propaganda is a lead up for some other bullshit outside of a full scale war with Iran. I just don't see all this happening in just the last year of the administration. I don't see it happening with Robert Gates in there.
    I don't see it with all the lives, money and military resources already in Iraq.

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

    by astronautagogo on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:13:19 AM PDT

    •  I'm remember Kucinich in 2004 (0+ / 0-)

      Making a hefty case that unless he was elected, there would no doubt be a draft by now.
      Let's not get too sensationalist about our predictions is all i'm sayin.

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

      by astronautagogo on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:26:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

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

      ...it seem that all year long there's been an "imminent attack on Iran." I remember there was big brouhaha at the beginning of the year and nothing happened. While searching for diaries on that I found this great comment by FleetAdmiralJ:

      ...First it was August [2006]. Then September, then October, then the first week of November, then I'm sure some people warned it was going to be January or  February or March too.

      the best way for people to immediately poohpooh a "we're attacking Iran on X date!" is to keep saying it over and over and continually being wrong over and over (not that you personally have been wrong this many times, but I've seen so many diaries like this for the past month that I'm like "yeah, whatever" for the most part now)

  •  Attack while Congress on recess: fait accompli (0+ / 0-)
  •  consulting congress (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrcoder

    if we could just get it straight in our minds that the President cannot declare war we'd have a much better chance of stopping the next misadventure.  

    only Congress can declare war.  hostilities cannot be launched without a declaration of war from Congress.  that's the principle we should be reminding the country of.

    •  if we could just get it straight in our minds (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, frandor55, mrcoder

      first, Congress seems to have lost it's mind/conscience...who are they representing, really?

      second, the current ruling powers don't CARE about principles this country was founded on.

      You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

      by lisastar on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:12:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The United States has already attacked two (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicta, bablhous, Matt Z

    countries and has not had to pay for it yet (several thousand dead Americans and a few hundred billion dollars don't even make a dent in the bad karma we bought by invading Iraq and Afghanistan).

    If America attacks Iran, maybe America will get a little payback in the form of planes, trains, and automobiles blowing up in heavily populated areas here in the homeland. If that happens, my attitude will be that America brought it on itself.

    In the United States, our government is representative. It represents us when it invades other countries. Therefore, we are all individually responsible for it. That's the price we pay for representative government. We are culpable. So when the people we hit turn around and hit us back, it would be ludicrous to say we don't deserve it.

    But when it happens, I bet most Americans will moan about how they didn't do anything to deserve the bus that drove into a mall and blew up, killing several dozen people, just like they did after 9/11.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:22:14 AM PDT

    •  We've tweaked Iran (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dianem, jds1978

      numerous times with few ill effects. The Brits might suffer because of their large Muslim population. The problems for America and Western Europe would probably involve a financial crisis involving the Russians and their oil and gas leverage or the Chinese who probably own our souls by now.
      The Russians are getting pretty uppity. They claimed Santa Claus's workshop this week and now they're teasing our Air Force over Guam. They must be pretty confident that they can get away with it too.

    •  Man, am I ever tempted to TR this (0+ / 0-)

      That's a horrible thing to say.

      45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

      by dconrad on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:43:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's horrible to say that a country should defend (0+ / 0-)

        itself AFTER it has been attacked? I don't think so. I think all nations should defend themselves, but only AFTER they are attacked, not BEFORE, like the United States does.

        Or is it horrible to say that we are responsible for what our representative government does? That's just the way it goes. Democracy has benefits and drawbacks, with one drawback being that the people are accountable for what they allow their government to do.

        Republicans are liars.

        by tr4nqued on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:15:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neither of those ideas (0+ / 0-)

          are horrible, but I just reread your comment above, and, well, could you possibly phrase it so that it is better suited to be used by the right against us, to show that the left hates America and cheers for the US to be attacked? I doubt it.

          45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

          by dconrad on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:45:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Impeachment would be the *START* (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978

    If Bush/Cheney extend the war to Iran (hey, maybe that's who met with Saddam and the 9/11 hijackers as the missing link!), whether by conventional weapons/forces or nukes, impeachment MUST go back onto the table.

    To be followed by war crimes tribunals and extradition to the Hague.

    That's the appeal to decency, morality, and what's left of democratic instincts in today's America.

    The appeal to base, simple, stupid self-preservation is shorter: How fucking stupid and arrogant do you have to be to think that choosing to attack Iran almost casually ("Shall we have a war, Dick?" "Might as well, George."), which isn't quite the poster-child for melding Islam and politics but ain't far from it, wouldn't inspire any blowback against Americans or American interests?

    Of course, I suppose the conservative/Republican retort to that would be, "Wrong! If we fail to nuke anyone for fear they'd retaliate, then they've punked us! If we can't nuke anyone preemptively, then the terrorists will have won!"

    Welcome to Terrorist Nation (motto: "Are you lookin' at me?")

    Since Bush said "We're not leaving [Iraq] while I'm the president," that means you're either for years of more war or you're for impeachment. Your choice.

    by Christopher on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:24:58 AM PDT

  •  What if it's a ruse to keep the Iraq war churning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    armadill, mrcoder, Kickemout

    ?

    Just a thought.

    •  Bombing Iran: makes Petraeus' report moot. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Little, shigeru

      I think you're right, Little.

      We bomb Iran, just before Petraeus' Sept. report.  Sooner probably better than later, just so that...

      ... Iran invades Iraq before the Petraeus officially says a word.

      At that point, no need for progress in Iraq.  It is our obligation to protect the "sovereignty" of the Iraqi nation.

      War unto eternity.  No 2008 election necessary.  

      Mission accomplished.

      It's just like getting a really bad fever before that scary final exam.

      •  Well I meant it differently (0+ / 0-)

        They bluster about Iran, and then we all feel we've  accomplished something by not going  to war with Iran - and the Iraq War goes on with everyone feeling they've accomplished something.

  •  oh good grief (8+ / 0-)

    even if all of this is true, We have no hope??? What the hell?? Lots of people around here have a tendency to much prefer resignation and anger over action. (i.e. Why bother writing to my GOP/Neo-Con/DINO representative?? It won't matter, so I'll just write another diary about why they suck instead!! That will at least make me feel better!) If we wallow in our misery and let that happen, then we are guaranteed not to get anywhere.

    I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

    by Buffalo Girl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:28:41 AM PDT

    •  If the system is broken (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, bablhous, frandor55, Matt Z

      You fix it.  If it can't be fixed, you replace it.  

      We're running out of fix it solutions, because the administrators are not listening to the field team.

      So, the question then is, what happens when administrators don't respond and others triy to stop you?  Then what do you do if replacement becomes the preferred option?

      Question authoritarianism.

      by m00nchild on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:41:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well I don't know what exactly you are saying (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sarac, jds1978, Matt Z

        but I don't think Gandhi and MLK Jr would have tolerated so much whine-y crap, so much resignation and defeatism if they were around right now and fighting. They faced no results for YEARS before they broke through, but they persevered and remained hopeful.

        It's understandable to be frustrated and angry, but to let it drive us is a HUGE mistake.

        We can't let despair and resignation cloud our vision. Our vision needs to remain hopeful and motivate us to continued action. If we do let it, then they win and we lose.

        Where's Buhdydharma?? We need some of his good energy instead of this stuff.

        I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

        by Buffalo Girl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:49:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is what I wrote negative? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sarac, mrcoder, jds1978, Matt Z

          First you fix.  If fixing doesn't work then you replace.  Sound like a plan for action to me.

          So I'm not being a whiny titty baby (as Sam Seder would say).  I'm being a pragmatist who has work to do.

          Hope is not necessary.  Just determination.

          Question authoritarianism.

          by m00nchild on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:29:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'd venture a guess that the military (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, mrcoder, Matt Z

      already knows Cheney could try something crazy and would refuse to cooperate. As far as any Bush toadie generals go, does anyone honestly think their orders would be taken seriously if they tried? The only thing Cheney might accomplish is causing widespread desertions and open mutiny. Hell, his own guard detachment might even pop a cap into his shriveled ass.  

      ...no hell below us, above us only sky.

      by rightiswrong on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:50:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well that would be crazy...but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rightiswrong, mrcoder, Matt Z

        would be strangely thrilling at the same time...

        I wrote this diary - wow - almost exactly a year ago, that tries to work out in a non-emotional way what exactly needs to happen to stop a war:

        Ok, how do we REALLY stop a war with Iran?

        So how the hell do we stop them?? I mean, really stop them? Not, like, talk about stopping them. Not yelling at them to stop. I mean, actually STOP them?

        Picture if you will..The Oval Office...Dick Cheney is there. Donald Rumsfeld. Condoleeza Rice. David Addington. Steven Hadley. The Joint Chiefs. Oh yeah, and Bush.  Cheney says "Mr. President, I know we've been talking about invading Iran for quite some time now, but sir, it's just not going to happen. We can't do it. I'm sorry, it's off the table....."

        Let's walk that back to this point right now. What gets Cheney to that point? What makes it impossible for him?

        I think the military going along with is is far from given.

        I choked on your post. It nearly killed me. Hitler killed people. Your post is just like Hitler. - Pope Bandar bin Turtle

        by Buffalo Girl on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:00:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Which of Our Christianist AF Brass Would Stop Him (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, neroden, mrcoder, jds1978

        from bombing?

        Bushco has been packing the Pentagon and military with true believers and flushing sane top end staff out as fast as they can pump.

        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 Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:49:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But the Christianoid brass don't fly the planes (0+ / 0-)

          And it's likely that the political commissars embedded in the ranks will be the first victims of friendly fire. I just can't see it happening so easily despite the command structure infiltrations.

          ...no hell below us, above us only sky.

          by rightiswrong on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:06:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I've been saying this since late 2005 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, bablhous, Jlukes, mrcoder

    glad to have more people aboard.  We have 18 months to avoid absolute fucking DISASTER in the middle east.  A neocon armageddon.  They've wanted Iran for years.  They've built lie (Iran wants to destroy Israel) upon lie (Iran stated they want to make a nuclear weapon) upon lie (Iran is behind all of the violence in Iraq) and they aren't doing this for no reason.  They have incorporated powerful groups and media outlets building up these lies.  You think they start major propaganda campaigns because they are bored?  Because they want to waste their time yapping lies about Iran for months and months?

    No.  They do it for a reason.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:28:47 AM PDT

  •  This attack has been predicted every year since (3+ / 0-)
    1. I think it was part of the neocon dream early on but the realities of our disaster in Iraq have sunk in even with them. I think this is a story planted by Cheney/Bush to put pressure on Iran. They are too dumb to realize that it is counter productive. Nothing would rally Iranians who opposer the regime more than an attack or the treat of an attack on their country.
  •  Cheney is not on the precipice of convincing Bush (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northsylvania, dianem

    of anything according to the McClatchy article. As long as Rice and Gates are against bombing Iran, it will not happen. Until then, let's have a little hope.

    "See, free nations are peaceful nations... Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." --George W. Bush

    by elbamash on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:30:51 AM PDT

  •  There Is No Substantive Evidence (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, wu ming, nicta, samfish

    That elected Democrats oppose military action against Iran.

    There is substantial evidence that Democrats view Iraq as a distraction from dealing with Iran.

    I don't know where the idea that the Democrats have an interest in deterring Bush from attacking Iran came from, other than out of somebody's ass.

    •  Could you please provide links (0+ / 0-)

      Or some kind of backup for this assertion. I have not seen indications that Democrats are anxious to bomb Iran.

      •  Here You Go (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DavidW in SF, Hornito, wu ming

        This amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 97-0, and it mandates "a report on support by the Government of Iran for attacks on coalition forces in Iraq."

        Gee, I wonder when that "evidence" Dick Cheney is talking about will arrive? Could it be on one of the reporting deadlines imposed by the Lieberman Amendment?

        Will it be in the unclassified body of the report, or more likely, in the classified annex?

        •  Studies are ways of avoiding action... (0+ / 0-)

          ...not generally a promise to take action. If the Dems actually supported attacking Iran, the resolution would say something like "We authorize Bush to take whatever action is necessary to stop Iran from supporting attacks on coalition forces".  That would be broad enough for him to run with an invasion but would provide the Dems wiggle room to claim that they didn't actually support a war.

          •  It's Not The Democratic Reading That Matters (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wu ming

            It's the opinion provided by White House Counsel.

            The Congressionally mandated report provides the causus belli, the President asserts his authority to take action, the Congress responds too slowly to stop him.

            With this White House, anything short of "NO YOU MAY NOT" is read as "no substantive impediment to doing what we want to do anyway."

            You're just engaging in pre-Bush administration thinking about the relationship between the Executive and Legislative Branches, a kind of thinking which bears no relationship to the current circumstances, however well-reasoned it may be from the point of view of historic understandings of constitutional law.

            •  Actually, you're being "Pre-Bush" (0+ / 0-)

              This administration doesn't think it needs permission to attack Iran. It has been clear that they feel that since Iran is helping insurgents in Iraq, they have the right to attack Iran under the existing authority to fight Iraq.

              By authorizing a study of the situation, the Democrats effectively took control of the situation back from the Bush administration. They are the ones who get to analyze the situation and, eventually, determine if action needs to be taken against Iran.

      •  Rep. Andrews (D-NJ) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming

        "If we take decisive action and, among other things, if we pursue the policy of regime change in Iran, I believe that the likelihood of having another September 12, 2001, will diminish; and more importantly, the likelihood of a catastrophic repeat of September 11, 2001, using a nuclear weapon will diminish greatly.

        We owe our country nothing less. We owe the decent people of Iran nothing less; and we owe it to our sense of history to get this very important job done. "

        Rep. Andrews (D-NJ)
        Statement on the floor of the 108th Congress
        March 3, 2004

        http://thomas.loc.gov/...

        IRAN -- (House of Representatives - March 03, 2004)

        It's getting drafty in here. Somebody close the war.

        by mrcoder on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:52:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The reason we knew about to impeach Cheney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, jds1978

    was to prevent actions like this.  Seriously, did anyone not expect this to be attempted?

    Maybe 41 should speak out to 43 about his VP nutjob.  Fat chance.

  •  Feeling a bit pessimistic? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sarac, bablhous, Scientician, Mary2002

    The article isn't nearly as negative as you say. There are some hopeful aspects:

    "For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling."

    "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq.""

    "Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor."

    There are actually some very hopeful signs that we won't end up in a war with Iran. I know it's still possible, but we're coming up on an election year and the right wing is now trying to shake their image of warmongers so that they can retain the middle. People are fed up with Iraq, and pretty much want out of the middle east entirely. There are no serious calls on the right for war with Iran, with the exception of neocons, who have been largely discredited and don't get the kind of press they used to get. Anything is possible. The situation could change quickly if there is another terrorist attack, and there will, eventually, be another attack. If BushCo can pin the attack on Iranians (true or noe), then all bets are off. But they've been trying to blame the problems in Iraq on Iran for months now, and people just aren't buying it.

    •  I am pessimistic (0+ / 0-)

      Pinning hopes on an incompetent Secretary of State and the one remaining sane person who would be a hawk in any other administration but this one is not my idea of not pessimism.

      0047710420123535161533 1541012554254325504300
      (-4.88, -4.15)

      by DrSpalding on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:43:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a lot more to it than that (0+ / 0-)

        Attacking Iran would be an economic disaster for the U.S. The resulting high gas prices would destroy our economy, and the blame would fall squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans. Our allies, even England, are not inclined to attack Iran. It's an election year, and politicians want people to be happy with the status quo. There are a lot of good reasons for not attacking Iran. I'm not saying that the case couldn't be made, but it's not all that likely.

        •  All good reasons, I agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous

          It's just that we had good reasons to not invade IraQ as well, and they did not stop it from happening.  I have no great faith that the neocon cabal in charge of this debacle can actually learn from mistakes, because they always believe that the ends justify the means and a neocon nirvana awaits them by asserting absolute dominance in the Middle East.

          0047710420123535161533 1541012554254325504300
          (-4.88, -4.15)

          by DrSpalding on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:55:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We never had good reasons not to invade Iraq (0+ / 0-)

            Not economic ones, at least. Moral yes, economic, no. The nation was weak, and if we had played our cards right we could have taken functional control over their oil fields, which would have been an economic benefit to the U.S. Of coures Bush screwed up and sent in too few troops and amateur politicians and didn't even accomplish this goal. Iran is too strong, politically and economically, for even the most optimistic neocon to think that we can walk in and take over their oil.

            •  I dispute the no economic reason meme. (0+ / 0-)

              We are in the damnable position we are today in large part due to the huge deficit spending we are doing to fund both the on-the-books and off-the-books war in Iraq.  Even if we could have gotten Iraq's oil flowing again, what exactly would it have bought us?  A few more years of not spending the $1 trillion we need to spend on alternative energy?

              I completely agree with the statement about the Bush screwup--that man probably couldn't pull off shitting into a hole in the woods, plan or no plan.

              0047710420123535161533 1541012554254325504300
              (-4.88, -4.15)

              by DrSpalding on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:12:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're thinking like a progressive (0+ / 0-)

                Put yourself in the minds of the neocons. It will require some major logic twisting, but it's possible. Iraq has oil. We need more oil. Alternative energy is not an option at this time. The Iraqis hate Hussein and will welcome any group that removes him with open arms. We have expat Iraqis who are sympathetic to the U.S. waiting in the wings to set up a government which will allow us to control Iraqi oil exports. A small expense in invading Iraq and stabilizing the government will result in a plentiful supply of cheap oil from a U.S. ally in the middle east. See... there are no economic reasons for not invading Iraq.

                But the logic doesn't work for Iran. Nobody thinks that our allies, who are also allies of Iran, will allow us to set up a puppet government in Iran. We're not going to go to war with Great Britain or Russia. And nobody thinks that we can overthrow the Iranian government by just deposing an unpopular leader with a minor war. Even the most optimistic neocons know that the only way we could overthrow the government of Iran would be with a very messy ground war. The best that we could hope for with bombs would be to set back their nuclear efforts and set a precedent for our willingness to bomb powerful nations. And that's the best case scenario.

  •  I say it ain't necessarily so (0+ / 0-)

    Depressing (due to being well thought-out) as the article is, I stick to my premise that Republicans are essentially cowards, and will not attack a foe that is sure to shoot back. They miscalculated on Iraq, but their preferences run to places like Grenada or Panama. They will not intentionally send the children of their base to get killed en masse. Rumsfeld was absolutely convinced that Iraq would be wrapped up in "maybe six days, maybe six weeks, certainly not six months." oops. Not only would Iran shoot back, but its considerable opposition to the current conservative government would show sudden solidarity with the government, much as we did for Bush on 9/11. I was sort of a lone voice in the wilderness (for a while) in saying that the 9/11 attacks were the single biggest contribution to Bush 2004 "re-"election campaign (the idea did catch on later). Nothing would suit the lunatic fringe of the Ahmadi Nejad crowd more than to have us attack them. That would ensure that the Ayatollahs would be in charge for the next century.

    "Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it." --André Gide

    by FToast on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:38:00 AM PDT

  •  So the question becomes why ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, bablhous, Matt Z, mommyof3

    Why would Cheney push for an invasion of Iran?  What gain is there in it for him/the neocons/ the Republican party/ oil companies/or any other interest that Cheney uses his position to advocate instead of the USA?

    A war with Iran would certainly add to the chaos in an already destabilized region ... who profits from this?  

    Oil companies certainly gain advantages in further destabilizing that region for the same reason that various business interests that exploit natural resources have sought to keep areas of Africa in a constant state of flux for generations.

    War profiteers such as Haliburton, Blackwater, and many other multinationals, not to mention US military government contractors, from GE and Boeing down to Bose and ammunition manufacturers would certainly benefit.

    The neocons -- well this advancing their twisted and suicidal world view ... for what its worth.

    The Republican party ... this is the one area where I don't agree with Cenk above.  I am not certain that a war with Iran would be politically disadvantageous for the republicans in '08.  The failure of the Democrats to stop such a war, especially in light of their supposed control of both chambers of Congress, would make it very easy for Republicans to claim that if we are there we are there with Democratic support (obviously Congress could have stopped this if it had wanted to).  It has the potential to fracture anti-war support off from the Democratic party.  And historically in times where the public believes there is a threat to this nation the electorate tends to swing conservative (which most people still identify with the Republican party, despite the fact that they abandoned true conservative principles ages ago).  And that is staying away from the Bush and the neo-cons are going to try and stop the '08 Presidential election and truly install King George theory (a theory I'm not ready to accept personally, but I hate to say is not sounding a tin hatty as it used to).

    Ok, this comment has gone on long enough (perhaps worth a diary with some further development down the line) ... the point is there is, or at least Cheney and those around him see, a number of positives in striking Iran for those interests they represent, despite the disaster it would be for this country.  To downplay the signs, or to not give them credibility because "wolf" has been cried before, is to only play further in to Cheney's, and those around him, hands.  The specific arguments in Cenk's diary can be argued, but the overall message is right on.

    If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shall not ration justice -- Judge Learned Hand

    by Todd42873 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:40:07 AM PDT

    •  I have read many places (0+ / 0-)

      that Halliburton actually does lots of business in Iran, if you want to look at that angle.  Of course it's through subsidiaries and such, and I can't be arsed to Google it or see if it is true.  But the stories are out there.

      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-- Isaac Asimov.

      by ssundstoel on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:39:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssundstoel

        Halliburton, through various subsidiaries does a sizable amount of business in Iran currently, ironically this was a scheme devised by Cheney during his time at Haliburton in order to work around the ban on US companies doing business in Iran.  

        However a US strike on Iran is not going to stop that, in fact it is likely that Halliburton, through these same subsidiaries, would reap great profits repairing the damage caused by the US.  Halliburton, will effectively double dip, make money off of US military contracts while at the same time charging Iran to rebuild.

        Halliburton, like Blackwater and any other company set up to act as a war profiteer, always benefit from great instability, peace cuts in to the profit margin.

        If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shall not ration justice -- Judge Learned Hand

        by Todd42873 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:01:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and here is a good link to an old article (0+ / 0-)

          on Halliburton in Iran.  Just the first that came up on Google, meant to include above and forgot in the multi-tasking.

          Halliburton’s CEO says his company is pulling out of Iran. But a corporate subsidiary is still going ahead with a deal to develop Tehran’s natural gas fields

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

          If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shall not ration justice -- Judge Learned Hand

          by Todd42873 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:03:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oil, Israel, and the MIE. That's all that needs (0+ / 0-)

      to be said. That triad rules our politics, our Treasury, and much of our media through their associated allies and corporations. End of story.

      The question has always been about how to defeat them (not Israel per se, but her fascist neocon political machine, and their allies here), and their puppets in BOTH parties. That's who progressives and peace loving peoples have been fighting, and always will... Personally, I don't see how we can beat them short of revolution and tens of millions in the street. They have the bombs, the money, the oil, and the media, and we have people who won't get off their ass and do anything.

      NO MORE DYNASTIES! No more triangulation! No more lies! No more war! No more corporatists! ELECT PROGRESSIVES NOW!

      by Hornito on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:56:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dave Obey: "We don't have the manpower" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    That's what I heard him say right after the 2004 election.

    I wonder what he's saying these days.

    And as far as I know, he has been a good, anti-war vote.  For that, I thank him.

    I have seen the fnords.

    by rhubarb on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:40:08 AM PDT

  •  Gimme a Break, Cenk. the Democrats Have Not (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, wu ming, bablhous, Mary2002

    been able to even make a dent in, let alone "stop" the bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-- in fact they are more or less enablers.

    the attack on Iran WILL go forward simply because that has in fact been the plan all along-- and that is what Israel and the U.S. oil transnationals want.

    you can't control the oil and natural gas bidness in the middle east with an ascendant, strong Iran on the move-- creating their own oil bourse, valuing their oil and natural gas reserves in Euros instead of the faltering Dollar and making oil and gas deals with India and China.

    Cerberus: In Greek mythology, the three-headed watchdog who guards the entrance to the lower world, the Hades.

    by Superpole on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:41:50 AM PDT

  •  Been thinking that "Changing the Vichy Party from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, wu ming, nicta

    Within" gameplan isn't really working all that well lately.

    I could be sadder and more disappointed, but I take comfort in knowing that the Dems will deliver more sadness and more disappointment, without a roadbump.

    I'm starting to put spam blocks on for all the candidates I supported before, sending me their updates on what a great job they are doing.

    •  sheesh (0+ / 0-)

      I wonder if Cheney rattles his sword like this for two reasons:

      1. Maybe it'll spook Iran into behaving (not likely)
      1. Ya get the progressives who worked hard to get a Dem majority in 2006 to give up on their party because they will:

      he Dems will deliver more sadness and more disappointment, without a roadbump

      huh...I bet one way to beat Dems is to get them to defeat themselves...

      •  "Maybe it'll spook Iran into behaving" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mary2002

        What would it take for Iran to "behave"?

        Stop refining uranium? Well, here's the thing: there is no basis in any treaty for them to stop. The non-proliferation treaty explicitly allows it, for civilian purposes. The US gov't says its purpose is otherwise, but that's just opinion, not fact.

        Should Iran stop aiding insurgents? Well, again, assuming they actually do in significant amounts, I don't see what, in int'l law, would forbid a sovereign nation from providing arms to another sovereign nation against an in invading force. Actually, considering that most of all current int'l law is a result of the Nürnberg trial, I think that's the exact opposite of the spirit of the law (UN charter etc). Except maybe if I missed a history lesson wherein the various résistance movement were condemned and the German occupiers supported.

        •  Obviously I was being (0+ / 0-)

          "flip" with point #1, but it sounds like you're interested in defending the Iranian government, a government that isn't exactly a shining example of the principles of La Révolution and the rights of man.

          You have to do some pretty interesting contortions of logic to see that the alleged Iranian support for "insurgents" is the Iranian government supporting the Iraqi government (such as it is) in its sovereign resistance to the US occupation.

          In terms of the uranium refinement charge and your contention that they're not violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, I guess I would refer to this quote from a Washington Post article:

          The IAEA board voted this month to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for "many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply" with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and because of an "absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes resulting from the history of concealment."

          Although your contention about the enrichment appears to be supported by this from a Der Spiegel interview on the iaea web page:

          ELBARADEI: Iran is very keen to see an affirmation of its right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nobody is questioning this right, what is at stake is confidence-building. Until confidence is restored, Iran should put a hold on enrichment-related activities, and to restore this confidence Iran needs to commit to being fully transparent and to start giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the full access we need for verification. This includes inspections under the Additional Protocol.

          However, the "confidence building" efforts of the IAEA were taken to the UN, which adopted a resolution calling for Iran to stop enrichment activities, and then adopted a resolution calling for sanctions against Iran:

          Determined to give effect to its unmet 31 July demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, the Security Council today imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment and freezing the financial assets of persons or entities supporting its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems.

          •  The Dems have defeated themselves (0+ / 0-)

            by becoming Bush enablers.  MCA, FISA, GITMO, Iraq War, FISA etc. - not one of these areas has not been subject to Dem enabling.  

            I guess if what is important to you is the label on the party (like the patch of fabric on the back pocket of a pair of 80-s jeans) then you stick with the brand name, even when you find out that they are made in the same factory, same threads, same workers, etc. as they pair you won't wear.

            I never did get into the label thing though.  

            Bad politicians are bad politicians.  Bad people are bad people.  And no one ever won the war, trying to change the Vichy party from within.

            •  good hell (0+ / 0-)

              Vichy...that is a stupid label (ms. 80's jeans) - the Democratic Party in the US is not enabling Hitler for crying out loud...this line of reasoning is tiresome.

              What, exactly, then, is your solution?

              •  The name is Mary - I don't hide behind (0+ / 0-)

                a label like "Science and Art" or one like "Dems"

                You need to state your issue for a solution, but the solution of Dems who support stupid horrible awful bad policies is the EXACT same solution as for Reps who support stupid horrible awful bad policies.

                People who tend to have fits over why Reps would continue to support their creeps despite revelations of creepiness are the first to circle the wagons to do the same with Dems who behave badly.

                You do not support them and you do support others.  Not "others until they lose the primary" but others period.  It is painful.  It isn't ez.  But it is much more calculated to evntually produce actual change than voting like a Republican does - starry eyed and butt labelled.

                And if you don't like the Vichy label, you don't have to plaster it on your butt.  Your choice.

                •  the issue in this thread (0+ / 0-)

                  is the potential for the US to launch military strikes against Iran. Do you think it is productive to label the entire Democratic Party the Vichy Party? Would you walk away from doing something to try to stop it because of your dissatisfaction with how some Democratic Senators or Representatives voted on such things as FISA?

                  You need to state your issue for a solution, but the solution of Dems who support stupid horrible awful bad policies is the EXACT same solution as for Reps who support stupid horrible awful bad policies.

                  Which is....(?)

                  ...the first to circle the wagons to do the same with Dems who behave badly

                  Demonstrably not true. Take Representative Jefferson for example...Plenty of us were far from circling the wagons and wanting to drag him out of Congress ourselves...It's not blind faith in a Party, it's a recognition of what the Party is supposed to stand for and what it can become IF people like us actively engage in the political process and work together towards shared goals.

                  If you want to trash the entire Party, I still have no idea what you think should be done to change the decisions made in Washington. A new Party? No Party alliances?

                  •  typo (0+ / 0-)

                    "Plenty of us were far from circling the wagons and wanting to drag him out "

                    should have read:

                    "Plenty of us were far from circling the wagons and want to drag him out "

                    •  You are being deliberately dense (0+ / 0-)

                      . . . I still have no idea what you think should be done to change the decisions made in Washington. A new Party? No Party alliances?

                      "You do not support them and you do support others" is not a difficult concept.  The Harry Reids, Carl Levins, Bill Neslons, Nancy Pelosis, Steny Hoyers, Heath Schulers, Brad Ellsworths, Ben Chandlers, etc. - you don't vote for them.

                      Does that mean that there will perhaps be Republicans you don't like and won't vote for either who win races - yes.  That's painful.  But you do not change decisions by rewarding bad behaviour with support.

                      Jefferson's 90,000 in the freezer is nothing compared to the DTA (which Levin co-sponsored) the MCA, the failure to support hate crimes legislation and the continuing belly crawl on giving Bush obscene powers.  

                      So you want to be like the faithful girlfriend/wife, with the bad boyfriend/husband, determined to make a man out of him someday - and that's fine - that's you.  I think you have to call a bad one a bad one, dump them, and realize there will be pain involved.  You think you can implement your views on the "party" and what it is supposed to stand for and what it can become, with bad people.  I disagree.  

                      You also try to first be a pompous jerk with your references to "good hell" and "Ms 80s jeans" when my name is right there(rather than responding to the criticism you go for name calling - which may explain why you don't mind a Republican light version for your candidates) then try to come back and reinvent yourself with a manufactured kumbayah moment of "...what it can become IF people like us actively engage ..."

                      Note to the consensus builder:

                      Don't belittle and snipe at a grown up woman, one who has been around the block and through a lot of battles, then expect a layer of pretentiousness to suddenly get them on the "people like us" page with you.

                      The party as a party has done a bad bad job for 6 years and they made their case for what they needed to do a better job.  They got that and more and, as a party, they have been a horrible failure.  THere have been quite a few good people - Leahy, Feingold, Whitehouse etc.  but theparty has stood for nothing and is governed by people who are unwilling to stand for anything and having proven that, I'm not going to sit crying by the phone, waiting for them to become better people.  I'll move on.

                      You won't. You think yours is the winning path - I think what that path win isn't worth having. We differ.

                       

                      •  huh (0+ / 0-)

                        You also try to first be a pompous jerk

                        and

                        So you want to be like the faithful girlfriend/wife, with the bad boyfriend/husband, determined to make a man out of him someday - and that's fine - that's you.

                        Um, no, you don't know me, and I don't have to take this shit from you, whoever you are.

                        I think you're exaggerating the Party's failures, and you still have offered nothing that comes close to an affirmative plan for how to change the direction this country is headed in.

                        If all you object to is the concept of a political party, fine, I agree, we differ on that point.

                        By the way I'm not being deliberately dense. Perhaps the giant chip on your shoulder is making it difficult for you to communicate your arguments clearly.

          •  All hail Stalin (0+ / 0-)

            "flip" with point #1, but it sounds like you're interested in defending the Iranian government, a government that isn't exactly a shining example of the principles of La Révolution and the rights of man.

            I'm not a big fan of Stalin, but you will allow me for praising its régime for, among other things, being the only country to support the Spanish republic.

            No, the world isn't all black and white.

    •  they'll be doing a great job (0+ / 0-)

      if they IMPEACH these bastards

      You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

      by lisastar on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:04:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think (0+ / 0-)

    I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're wrong and over-simplifying (though I have been accused of being an eternally optimistic cynic...or something...).

    First of all, I don't think the military can take it. I mean of course they would do it if the order came, but I can't imagine that the military wants this or thinks it's a good idea with respect to military capacity. In my mind the only way to really engage Iran is to keep our nuclear weapons as an option (because conventional warfare with Iran would not be like fighting Hussein's regime). Not that the military really thinks that these are never-use weapons, but I think most really don't like the idea of using them.

    Second, I don't think the White House could keep moderate Republicans or Democrats on their side with something like this. Many of these people have to get re-elected soon, and I think they know where the American public would be on something like this. Your contention that the Democrats in Congress would just go along with it is overly pessimistic in my opinion...

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think the White House could keep moderate Republicans or Democrats on their side with something like this. Many of these people have to get re-elected soon, and I think they know where the American public would be on something like this.

      so the majority of consituents in areas where the blue dogs live were FOR them voting for FISA? Just sayin'...if so maybe your theory makes sense.

      You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

      by lisastar on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:02:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

        if a majority were for the recent FISA bill, but I'd bet many don't know much about it, and if asked would probably say they were for "getting the terrorists." So, yes I would bet that many of them were for it, and that their support would likely be based on incomplete information with large servings of fear.

        However, I don't think these same people have any taste for expanding our military adventures into Iran...I think that in their minds there's no good reason for it, especially in the context of it likely increasing the number of soldiers and marines coming home in boxes, strains on our economy, and continued problems with our ability to deal with issues at home...

        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous

          agreed that these folks don't have any taste for expanding military adventures...what I don't think is that Congress is voting to represent them any longer, whatever their opinions. The reps will do what they can to get re elected but that may depend as much on how they spin the message to assuage opinion back home.

          There is a disconnect between Congress and the people; they do in fact appear to be voting based on pressure from the administration. If so, the arugument that they won't let down their constituents loses steam.  As to whether the military will stand up to Bush, it may be our only hope.  

          You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

          by lisastar on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:24:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  stop (0+ / 0-)

    Will people stop this nonsense. Once every 2 weeks or so another diary is recommended say an Iran attack is eminent. This has been going on for years and nothing has happened. There are a lot of things that need worrying about, stop inventing boogymen.

  •  In the pipeline (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    Here's a link to an article by Mike Whitney about the importance of Khuzestan in the Iran strategy.  His links to further background on the province are quite good too.

    A new 42 inch pipeline from Mosul to the tanker port in Haifa has been on the drawing boards for several years.  A southern branch from Basra could carry oil, natural gas, water, and hydroelectric power from Khuzestan to Israel on the same right of way.  Considering both Iraqi oil and the resources in Khuzestan, enough potential wealth is in play to justify a 'great war''.  A Mediterranean distribution point for all of this wealth would become the most valuable real estate on the planet.

    The alternate Mediterranean port is in Turkey -- a less direct route, favoring a less reliable ally.  The Israel option must have strong support from Cheney -- Libby, Wurmser, and Edelman, top Cheney assistants, are deeply embedded in pro-Israeli power structures.  Edelman left as Cheney's national security adviser in 2003 to become Ambassador to Turkey, probably for the purpose of conducting Cheney business there. By all accounts Edelman acted with extreme arrogance and did great damage to US-Turkish relations.

    The Haifa tanker port could be serviced by pipeline routes through either Jordan or Syria.  Jordan has much to be gained from pipeline transit fees but can participate only if apparent progress is made with the 'Palestinian question'.  Condi was there recently working on that.  Alternately, a war with Syria could raise the prospects for that route, which would include a significant land grab for Israel.

    Turkey and Israel have been planning joint action against Syria for some time.  However, if this would have the result of taking Turkey out of contention for the pipeline route, plans already made could amount to an Israeli doublecross.

    The quarter million Turkish troops on the northern Iraq border, and the highest state of military readiness in Israel and Syria this month could have to do with all of that.

    For the oil industry, replacing the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca with the Strait of Gibraltar is a no brainer.  No doubt all of this was discussed in Cheney's secret energy meetings.   Daniel Yergin was among those attending.  His book The Prize, about the history of the oil industry, is still essential reading for an understanding of current events.

    •  Iran and Syria signed a pact (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mary2002

      an attack on one is an attack on both.
      Google "iranian syrian pact" its lal out there.
      Plus according to wikipedia or some other website (and adding up the numbers) they could field ground forces of maybe 2 million troops between them.
      The only option to combat mass armies on this scale is tactical nukes, that would unleash hell on earth in the ME, and prob plunge the World in a major depression due to the oil stopping, and total collapse of the US economy.
      They would have to be insane to do something like this, or just not care about tomorrow.

      "OK, joke's over. Put back the Constitution!"

      by Ferrofluid on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:22:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Military strikes likely, War not so much . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, jds1978

    Though I think military strikes inside Iran are highly likely given Cheney's disposition and this administration drumbeat for war, I seriously doubt that we are going to invade Iran any time soon.

    This is one accusation made frequently on this site that I just don't understand.  Though I think Bush's mental health is suspect, he's not completely mentally incapable.  The reality is that we just don't have the troops for it.

    I know Cheney would love to go to war with Iran, but his and Bush's stubborn refusal to leave Iraq makes a war with Iran impractical, risky and more likely to hurt the US than any undertaking yet. Even if he instituted a draft we couldn't possibly train troops fast enough to start a conflict in Iran anytime soon.

    Regardless, I think they would use military strikes against Iran, a prospect I think would be equally foolish.  Enriching uranium is not the same as building weapons, or attacking terrorist and weapons making facilities.  We wouldn't have even a modicum of stated international support for such a move.  Unlike Iraq, Bush can't even claim to be enforcing bogus UN resolutions.  We would have almost zero support from our allies and alienate us further from the ones who marginally support us.

    Furthermore, it is likely that Iran's enrichment facilities are underground and are probably located in populated areas.  A real possibility exists that we might kill a lot of civilians without even a legitimate claim to tangible benefits.

    Regardless, I recognize this won't stop this administration nor would it prevent them from making whatever ludicrous claims they may try to make.  Cynically, I believe this is merely an attempt to bolster GOP candidates that are obviously headed toward electoral defeat against whatever Democrat we put forward, or it is a futile attempt for Bush to claim some kind of success in foreign policy.

    Ultimately, neither Bush nor Cheney really gives a damn about how much these actions would hurt America, American soldiers, our credibility, our integrity or the Iranian civilians we would inevitably kill.  This would ultimately accomplish nothing and would instead serve more as a recruitment opportunity for al Qaeda.

    •  since when do they adequately prepare? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, jds1978, dclawyer06

      Even if he instituted a draft we couldn't possibly train troops fast enough to start a conflict in Iran anytime soon

      You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

      by lisastar on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:58:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Never said anything about adequately (0+ / 0-)

        Currently we're not adequately training our soldiers.  Training has, in some instance gone down from several months to several weeks, but you have to at least teach people how to fire a gun.  Besides its not just the training that slows the process down. Even as his role as commander in chief, Bush can't just institute a draft on his own.  You have to legislate a draft--meaning go through Congress, institute the draft, equip the soldiers and send them to the Middle East.  This wouldn't occur overnight, much less in 6 months.  Even the Naval battle group currently operating near Iran isn't enough to start a full scale war.

    •  Are not military strikes a war to those stricken? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming

      We may not see bombing Iran as war, but I bet you the Iranians do. And the rest of the Muslim world, plus the Chinese and the Russians.

      Dick Cheney has the matches and the gasoline and he just can't wait to play with them to see what pretty explosions he can cause.

      I know Vermont has been talking secession for a while. I am beginning to sympathize. I cannot see how we can be forced to support, and pay for, a war that most of us disagree with. And then stand by as they start another war. And nothing else has worked against these people. So let's leave them with their red-staters, and their anti-stem cells, and their low taxes and crashing bridges, and act like civilized human beings again.  

      My file on RedState.org: 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 Aug 10, 2007 at 12:50:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No disagreement. (0+ / 0-)

        If you read my post to the end you would understand that I agree with you--though not the succession part.  

        But from a purely strategic perspective there's a big difference between full scale invasion and military strikes.  I do point out my concerns about military strikes in my post, some of which you merely repeat.  That said, remember that Clinton used military strikes against al Qaeda camps during his presidency.  Do you disagree with his actions?

  •  I haven't read all of them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sarac, walkingdeer

    but some of the comments here are enough to make a grown man cry (well almost).

    The successes of the past election are evidence that we can affect the direction of government in this country. Of course we (defined broadly) don't control government because there are people out there who disagree with us. However, the fact remains that we can affect it, and throwing our hands in the air and talking about destiny issued from the mouth of Cheney that is unstoppable is self-defeatist and not so much a good excuse for doing nothing. Engage your representatives, sign petitions, write letters...in short do all of the things we all try to do to change the reality confronting us.

  •  Manic Depression and Cheney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrWolfy

    In 1994, D Jablow Hershman and Julian Lieb wrote an extremely controversial work, "A Brotherhood of Tyrants: Manic Depression and Absolute Power" (Prometheus), that examined this Terrible Troika in the context of their illness. The book is a companion to an earlier work on the lives of Newton, Beethoven, Dickens, and Van Gogh republished in 1999 as "Manic Depression and Creativity."

    The "case files" on Napoleon and Hitler and Stalin read like a clinician’s worst nightmare: raging tempers, manic highs, grandiose and psychotic delusions, paranoia, extravagantly reckless behavior, gloomy depression, and contemptuous disregard for others - and this was when they were just kids. Had they been born into slightly different times and circumstances, they would have been bundled up and tossed into the darkest void and never heard from again, but to the great misfortune of humanity all three came of age in a time of top-to-bottom social upheaval. The lunatics had already taken over the asylum by the time these three arrived on the scene.

    The Hague is a great retirement place.

    by ohcanada on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:55:01 AM PDT

  •  we are assuming (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, bablhous
    1. that Bushco won't really attack Iran because of the nightmare political/economic/security scenarios outlined in below comments;  
    1. and we assume that we can depend on Congress to do the right thing regarding declaring war.

    Well, Bush and Cheney are both nuts and Congress has just shown us how much they care about doing the right thing for America with their FISA vote (among other things.)

    What has happened to our party will not matter when this plans comes to fruition...are they scared, have they been infiltrated, just stupid?

    All bets are off.

    You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

    by lisastar on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:55:26 AM PDT

  •  Too bad they hanged Saddam. (5+ / 0-)

    He was an expert on what happens when you fuck with Iran. They don't roll over for you and it gets real nasty.

    Besides, after years of this kind of threat from us, I'll bet they're way more prepared than we are for the aftermath of air strikes. Oh yeah, and  the fact that our belligerents are also our incompetents.

    WORST GODDAMN PRESIDENT SINCE 1789.

    by perro amarillo on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:59:41 AM PDT

  •  History is at another fork on the road (5+ / 0-)

    One road leads to a future of great pain and suffering while we redress the gigantic damage done by Bush with the Iraq occupation, the economy and the rape of the Constitution.

    The other road (Iran attack) leads to the end of the world as we know it, holocausts and worse.

    We faced another fork on the road when we let "Trickiest Dicky" invade Iraq.

    I wish we could stick these forks in some part of his anatomy.

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

    by Shockwave on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:01:44 AM PDT

  •  Depressing as hell diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, jds1978, lisastar

    but right on.  

    We have a vice president who is seriously unbalanced.

    ...don't forget, sociopathically evil...

    We have a president who is seriously unintelligent.

    ...but just as unbalanced as his "boss", Cheney

    And we have an opposition party who is seriously unprepared for the challenge.

    ...and for some reason, terrified of even mildly bucking this administration (won't speculate the "why" here, as others have done so in many excellent diaries)

    It's a recipe for disaster.

    You said it.

    Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught. ~Honoré de Balzac

    by hopesprings on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:05:36 AM PDT

  •  The economy will crash first it looks like ... (7+ / 0-)

    Somehow I think that the world will intervene.  We are a cartoon.  Bush has made America no longer the "Captain America" Superpower to be feared and honored, instead America is the mentally handicapped "Baby Huey" of nations.  

    Our once glorious country is now an object of derision and laughter worldwide.

    And then, there is China.  Do you really think that the Chinese paymasters that hold our paper and our currency in hostage will really let Bush/Cheney suck the air out of their profit margin?  

  •  There has only been the illusion of control (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blue vertigo, lisastar

    We have an unelected president, what so we expect? We are just going to have to watch this play out and try to take care of each other, until the evil burns itself out.

    You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

    by dnamj on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:13:15 AM PDT

  •  Sane Republicans may be our only hope (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias

    And what comfort that is, huh?

    The only way I see out of this mess is for any sane Republican in Congress to initiate and impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney. Any sane Republican looking into the next forty years of the GOP being cast out into the wilderness unless they get their party back fast has got to be thinking about this. It's really about the only way for them to keep any credibility and electoral power. And the one thing the Republicans are very keen on is self-interest.

    The Democrats can initiate impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales, and they would be fairly likely to succeed in removal. This would significantly weaken the Bush/Cheney power structure. At that point a Republican-led impeachment of Dick Cheney could move forward with success.

    I'd gladly settle for improving the chances of the GOP (in a more sane incarnation) keeping power in the House and Senate if it meant toppling the crazed idealogues who currently run it.

  •  Republicans will be to blame for (0+ / 0-)

    making us a nuclear target.

    They will be remembered as the party who put the nuclear bullseye on America for good.

    Dick Cheney should be strung up now, before it's too late.

    Don't let Bloomberg/Lieberman08 "Nader" our Democratic unity.

    by Lieberberg Plan on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:20:04 AM PDT

  •  A possible Overton window ploy (0+ / 0-)

    to make other GOP-ers look moderate in comparison.

    Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

    by Bill White on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:21:53 AM PDT

  •  Dem politicians don't listen to Dem voters (5+ / 0-)

    I heard your rant this morning, Cenk, and you were spot on. Despite their many failings, the republican electorate at least gets representation. Their voices get heard.

    If you're a democrat, however moderate, you don't. It is an outrage! We return our party to power after 12 years of being in the wilderness and we can't even reign in the least popular president in the modern history.

    Why won't they listen to us? I'm of the frame of mind that we've got to unleash a wave of primary challenges. Maybe it's generational and the group in power now is shell-shocked after years of abuse from Rush Limbaugh, et. al.

    Primary them.

  •  National work slow down. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    armadillo, jds1978

    Show up and move as slowly as you possibly can.

  •  Here's the deal (4+ / 0-)

    The opinions of Democrats, Republicans or anyone else in the legislative branch makes NO DIFFERENCE to this WH administration.  BushCheneyCo seem to think that the Congressional authorization given in response to 9/11 gives them permission to simply order wars to begin where-ever and whenever they want.  And the executive branch only controls the shooting.  I predict they will see no need to consult anyone before issuing orders to 'bomb Iran' or take any other rash action.

  •  What is the topic here? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LEP, bablhous, paige

    "Do you think the Democrats will be able to stop Bush if he decides to strike Iran? If you do, you have no idea what you're talking about."

    I get the impression your concern is not so much about Iran as it is with Democrats. Persue these pages, and you can susbtitute "strike Iran" with at least half-dozen other things.

    But I'll play along for a moment - current foreign policy is still "shoot first, pay off Halliburton later," indicating that you are essentially correct, Democrats would not be able to stop Cheney. So go ahead and bomb Iran, Dick, and war will break out all over. Iran might even cease to be the worry, we'll have unrest bordering on civil war right here in the USA - hey, let's declare martial law while we're at it! Additionally, as noted in other comments, the unrest in the financial markets would cascade - a little war is good for business, a lot of war is not, and $100+/bbl Saudi crude would look like a bargain once Iran mines the Strait of Hormuz and puts a few torpedoes into an ExxonMobil tanker.

    Best bone up on your subsistence farming, because this way of life would surely grind to a halt after the seizures subside.

  •  Sadly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    I think you're probably right.

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

    by InsultComicDog on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:31:41 AM PDT

  •  i don't think that word means ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sarac, chuckvw, Matt Z

    ... what you think it means.
    s.

    untitled.
    emily dickinson.

    Hope is the thing with feathers
    That perches in the soul,
    And sings the tune--without the words,
    And never stops at all,

    And sweetest in the gale is heard;
    And sore must be the storm
    That could abash the little bird
    That kept so many warm.

    I've heard it in the chillest land,
    And on the strangest sea;
    Yet, never, in extremity,
    It asked a crumb of me.

    the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity --w.b.yeats the second coming

    by synth on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:35:52 AM PDT

  •  Philip Giraldi has a piece in the new American (6+ / 0-)

    Conservative stating that, at a National Security Council meeting in mid-July, Cheney was arguing for a retaliatory strike against Iran in the event of a terrorist operation in the United States, that the proposal was not supported by the Departments of State and Defense, and that Bush reserved judgment.  So you appear to be right about Gates.

    There's an op ed in today's Financial Times labeling the attempt to blame Iran for our troubles in Iraq an absurd fabrication.  Maybe the financial community can block Cheney and his mad schemes?

    Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

    by lysias on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:42:09 AM PDT

  •  Your interview with Psychiatrist (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Ari Mistral, jds1978, Matt Z

    Dr. Franks which was made available yesterday was very alarming. He has had 6 years to research and observe Mr. Bush, and according to him a pscyhologically compromised "cornered Bush" could have disastrous outcomes to our nation and the world. On the other hand, a unpruned Shrub may also have disastrous results, but as Dr. Franks says the reining in of what he calls a man with grandiose, narcisstic and psychopathic traits who thinks they are above the law would be preferable.

    Interestingly, he asserts that it is Bush than runs the show and not Cheney, and that most liberals tend to let Mr. Bush off the hook because he is a "dry drunk" and focus their blame on Cheney. Unarguably they are a dangerous duo and whatever the dynamics have been they were and continue to be effective. Indeed it was Mr. Bush who stated the Big Lie which is the easily digestible sound-bite meant to resonate in the primitive recesses of the minds of the American public and press their fear hot-button.

    "This is a government [Iran] that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon."

    Here's the link of Cenk Uygur's 15 minute interview yesterday with psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank :

    http://huffingtonpost.com/...

    "In every culture in decline the watchful ones among the slaves, know that all that is genuine will be scorned and conned and cast away" Joni Mitchell

    by brave little park on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:45:50 AM PDT

  •  For those who comfort themelves (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LEP, Mary2002, jds1978

    with the idea that Cheney will not bomb Iran because it would be: stupid, irrational, senseless, dangerous, etc.  May I remind you the exact same logical deterents were used about Sir Edmund Hillary's seemingly insane obsession. And what did Hillary answer when pressed to explain why he climbed Mt. Everest?

    Because it's there.

    Mr. Cheney, why did you bomb Iran?

    Because it's there.

    Human nature does not change.  It just seems to get more unfathomable.

    To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

    by miriam on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:52:19 AM PDT

  •  In this scenario, the question has to be.... (0+ / 0-)

    what will the Rethugs in Senate and House do? Of course the Dems will not have the power to override the Rethugs if they also fall in line. But the hope (perhaps rather faint) is that the Rethugs (or Rethug lites) will see the light and vote against escalation.

    Maybe I am dreaming! :-(

  •  I have not read all of the above but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    as inarticulate as Bush seems to be/is, I no longer believe he is stupid.  In fact, I think he is acting very deliberately, making it look kinda sorta like he is being directed by Cheney and others.  But I believe he is in charge and right there next to Cheney, Rove et al.

    Of course, that makes it all the worse, doesn't it? He's doing this stuff because he wants to.

    Why did I change my view to this even darker picture? I know people (people I respect) who have gone to meetings with Bush and noted how he took charge and did most of the speaking - and knew what he was saying.  And this morning on CSPAN radio I heard him at the press conference he had just before leaving for his vacation. His style was folksy, as always, with little folksy interjections, but he spoke confidently about the economy and reasonably-sounding about Iraq.  (I say "reasonably sounding" because I don't believe him, but his responses were not illogical.)  I was surprised to hear this, but, fitting it with the account of the meeting I mentioned above, I now think Bush adversary is WAY worse than Bush puppet.

  •  Heh, Cheney and what army? (0+ / 0-)

    For reals, what are they going to do?  "Cut'n Run" from Iraq?

    •  Was just reading about some cabinet member (0+ / 0-)

      (whats his name who replaced Rumsfield maybe) talking to one of the papers about possibly reinstating the draft.

      My interprestation was this is a coded attempt to thwart Cheney's agenda, but we shall see.

  •  I'm your man (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia

    War is outdated. Dalai Lama

    by x on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:19:36 PM PDT

  •  Allow me to posit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary2002, lisastar

    a tiny micro-nano particle of silver lining inside this cloud of feces:

    impeachment might be back on the table.

  •  Maybe we need to start (0+ / 0-)

    writing to and calling Gates. Whenever I 've watched him, he does seem to be in touch with reality, and i think his job weighs very heavy on him.

    Maybe if WE apply the pressure to him...he isn't used to hearing from the people personally...what can it hurt?

  •  If the democrats won't do it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978

    How far are you willing to go?  What are you willng to do to prevent fascism in America?  

    •  Boycott (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978

      Pick a day to boycott first gas, then the mall, then the grocery, then fast food national restaurants.  Screw up their labor time clocks, they will be over busy at times and under busy at times.  National boycott for a month at selected targets.  Send a message.

  •  Cheney's real opponent is US military. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden

    I don't think the US military is going to let Cheney drag them down rat hole No. 3 when they are still deep in rat holes 1 and 2, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As Obama correctly pointed out, the real enemy is Bin Laden, he's in Pakistan and Pakistan has nukes and an extremely shaky military dictator. US needs to be focusing on the real threat in Pakistan and US military knows this as does US intelligence with recent headlines of US "re-evaluating" the security of  Pakistani nukes.

    U.S. assessing Pakistan nukes if Musharraf falls.

    No one knows this more than US military so any real plans by Cheney to attack Iran are likely going to be "leaked".

    Congressional Republicans would be the next line of defense, many of them see their jobs threatened by failure of Iraq war. Letting a 30% approval rating miltary failure like Bush drag them down even further is likely to put the brakes on an Iran adventure.

    •  Disagree about the 'thuglicans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978

      Most of them have clearly decided to go down with their captain.  It's rather interesting.

      You're quite right about the military.

      -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

      by neroden on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:42:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is the military going to refuse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978

      an order to attack Iran? Seems pretty unlikely I'm afraid...

      •  Not refuse but resist and they have ways. (0+ / 0-)

        One way is to use their allies in Congress like Republican Senator Warner and make their case that starting a war with Iran is impossible for US military that is already over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan with Pakistan looming as an even bigger threat if a pro-al-Qaeda government takes power.

        What military failed to do in Iraq was clearly lay out the worst case scenario (which is what transpired). If they do that in Iran, Bush will not be able to justify attacking Iran.

    •  Isn't the Air Force filled with fundy whackos (0+ / 0-)

      though?

      I should think all Cheney thinks he needs is a network of idiots willing to do some bombing runs into  Iran to at least TRY TO drag the rest of the military AND the country kicking and screaming into another 'war'.

  •  For Oil, Israel or Halliburton? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Existentialist

    So what's driving Cheney? I listed three possibilities.  Maybe someone can suggest others. Of these three only Halliburton will move the Democrats to oppose Bush's swan song. They will even urge Bush on because then Iran will then hang on Bush's neck for they are just as likely to do the same thing themselves on their own watch. I expect the worst for American citizens on Iran from Bush and no help from Democrats. The campaign contributions tell me so. {Both parties will combine to make sure than Obama does not make it}

  •  "I disagree with the president's decision to (6+ / 0-)

    begin bombing Iran, but now is not the time to be arguing. Now is to support the troops and our Commander in Chief. There will be ample time to argue the specifics."

    -Future Democratic response.

  •  Hunkered in my bunker, driving a junker, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scorpiorising, jds1978

    the economy a clunker.

    M3 has grown at an annualized 13%.

    Should we get out of stocks?

    Accountability: the ultimate Progressive Value...

    by ormondotvos on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:12:19 PM PDT

  •  A bleak picture but I still want to know if (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue vertigo, jds1978, lisastar

    whatever patriots remain on the military general staffs really feel that we can attack Iran without paying a severe price in the form of military and paramilitary retaliation in Iraq.

    Given that Sistani is Iranian born and that his issuance of a fatwa is all that is needed to bring the masses into the streets, an attack on Iran could likely lead to widespread attacks on our military.  

    Regardless of our capability (which by now seems stretched and stressed), the local actions could be devastating as the troops retreat and hunker down.  With few Farsi and Arabic speaking intelligence resources, we would not have a clue as to what was going to transpire after such an attack.

    Cheney is insane.  Bush is feeble.  They are setting the stage for a bloodletting on all sides.

  •  "Trained Pavlovian dogs" - by whom? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ari Mistral, brave little park

    As you know, the Pavlovian behavioral response is created by a series of reinforcements (negative and positive) delivered in a manner that creates the desired response and eliminates undesired responses.

    Who has been giving the reinforcements? The American people, who themselves are products of Pavlovian behavioral conditioning via the Lamestream Media.

    Cenk is correct--the Defeatocrats will rally around the Commander-in-Thief soon as the bombs fall. We here in the blogosphere will bloviate mightily. We will even hold a rally or two, sign multiple online petitions, and threaten to withhold our netroot dollars from the go-along to get-along Democrats, and in the meantime nothing much will have changed.

    Cindy Sheehan will conduct a sit-in at an office somewhere.

    Fox's ratings will go up along with the flag decals. This is the way it is in a militarized economy and country.

    What will set us from free?

    An economic disaster that interrupts cable service.

    And one is on the way, I hear.

  •  Well I have hope (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkb246, lisastar

    I am kinda hoping China won't agree to pay for it. If you're listening, Chinese leaders, it's time to pull the plug!

  •  I am also (0+ / 0-)

    anticipating the next shoe falling to be bombs in Iran followed by a "rally 'round the flag boys" media barrage, followed quickly by a DRAFT and massive upheaval in the country.  I'm hoping for a resurgence of anger and protest like I participated in 40 years ago to keep my brother and friends out of war.....this time it will be to save my son, and other mothers sons.  I thought I was just being my usual pessimistic self, it's a bit heartening to hear others are having the same thoughts, or would be if it was about something less murderous.

    •  I don't think a draft will work (0+ / 0-)

      Unless the evildoers in the WH have laid a TON of groundwork when it comes to imprisoning draft resisters, etc.

      Not that I think that is impossible by any means, but I still find it hard to imagine happening - mostly due to the abysmal incompetance of the Bush WH at that kind of thing thus far.

  •  It's worse than you think. (4+ / 0-)

    For one thing, it's folly to assume Bush needs convincing.  For another, Democrats are already falling over themselves to support the war against IraN--just as they continue to support the war against IraQ.  Just a couple of weeks ago the Senate voted unanimously (97-0) to legitimize the casus belli more or less spun out of thin air by the Bush crime syndicate.  Even the socialist played along (but then, nowhere have socialists ever been known for their pacifist creds, at least not since 1914).  The vote was, of course, a fancy-schmantzy way of authorizing a war while claiming not to be doing so.

  •  Whose military will be fighting? (0+ / 0-)

    Because unless we start up the draft again, we're going to have to hire mercenaries to fight this third front! I work for the military, I know how stretched we are now - we're turning patients away at our facility, sending them to civilian docs because we have no one left! So, just what freaking planet is Cheney on and where is he going to find more troops?

  •  Gates' final play (0+ / 0-)

    If he has any honor...would be to resign in protest and blow the whistle.  Counting on honor from power is like a candle in the wind.

    Time waits for no one, the treasure is great spend it wisely.

    by mojavefog on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:03:54 PM PDT

  •  I hope you're wrong too... (0+ / 0-)

    But I believe you speak the truth.

    We're screwn.

  •  What Democrats *should* do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lisastar

    The formal power that Congress under the Democratic majority has to stop a war in Iran is the War Powers Act and the "power of the purse". If Bush/Cheney commence hostilities against Iran, Congress can withhold funds for the effort; and if Congress has not declared war or passed an authorization within 60 days of the beginning of the conflict, the War Powers Act says that the President must remove US armed forces from hostilities.

    Bush/Cheney will, of course, respond that that's all unconstitutional, and that they can do whatever they want under the theory of the "unitary executive". They can probably finagle the cash from other sources within the government, and will continue the war. All the while squawking that Democrats are traitors, of course.

    At that point, Congress' only recourse is to impeach and remove both of them from office. And if the Constitution is ever going to mean anything at all any more, that's what they'll have to do.

    But I'm afraid I see no reason to doubt Cenk's pessimistic conclusions about the Democrats in Congress. For a long time already, the conditions necessary for a full-on constitutional battle between Congress and the presidency have been there, on a large number of issues. And the fact of the matter is that the law and the Constitution are entirely on Congress' side. If we take our legal system seriously, Bush and Cheney simply do not have the power to do this or many of the other things they have been doing. But the Democrats just have not had the nerve to assert the powers that the Constitution grants them, precisely to prevent this sort of insanity from happening. The screams about "national security", "support the troops" and "being tough" never fail to scare the blue-dogged bastards shitless.

    There's at least one thing about all this that's different from the Iraq debate -- the Reptilian bellowing about the appropriations bills depended on the fact that troops are already deployed in Iraq; cutting off the funds, they claimed, would leave them abandoned in the desert. Never mind the fact that was a pile of horseshit, this argument would not apply to a situation in Iran in which no troops are deployed yet.

    But really, since when have chickenshit Blue Dogs ever paid any heed to subtleties like that? Anything anybody ever does to stop Bush/Cheney's militarism is portrayed as treason, no matter what it is, and it never fails to make the Blue Mutts piss down their legs, roll over and play dead.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    by Buckeye Hamburger on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:20:21 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the rallying cry Cenk (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, Bronx59

    This brutally accurate rap will not go unnoticed. Your contribution will help focus minds that may be able to stop the maddness.

    "Is this manly?" - Saddam

    by Saint Saddam on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:27:01 PM PDT

  •  There is not much hope of preventing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    armadill

    an attack on Iran if the President is intent upon it.
    Because our Congress has given him anything he wants to date and has been afraid to deny funding to the military for any reason, there is ample money to allow attacks on Iran.

    The court of public opinion is not much use either as all the propaganda outlets (aka msm) are controlled by Republicans.

    I agree it is a "loser" proposition, although I am sure we would be able to kill a bunch of people and would be able to neutralize a few bases. However, in the long term it would cause much more trouble in the Middle East and would also make extrication from Iraq more difficult. This might be the real reason behind Cheney's plan.

    "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions." U.S.Grant

    by shigeru on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:29:43 PM PDT

  •  This was inevitable from the start with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, lisastar

    Cheney being the Saudi lap poodle that he is. By far the most dispicable nonhuman ever birthed.

    "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

    by java4every1 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:34:55 PM PDT

  •  Nothing less than saving the world (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice

    Tie the probability of a world gone mad, a la Cheney, to the growing fundamentalism within the military as continually and also recently uncovered by Mikey Weinstein:http://www.google.com/...
    Please support Mr. Weinstein, a true american hero, by visiting Military Religious Freedom Foundationhttp://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
    spread the word, and give till it helps.

  •  finally (5+ / 0-)

    Finally, finally someone as angry at our wimpy sellout, gutless complicit "Democratic leadership" as I am!  I agree that they are beating the war drums, and we have a lot of aircraft carriers and naval power sitting in the Persian Gulf, just waiting for word for an attack.  

    Something is up.  Bush started a "get tough" immigration crackdown today.  Perhaps he has decided to rally the wingnut base, and nothing does that better than announcing immigration crackdowns and attacks on the "Islamofascists."  I fear the diarist is right, the minute the bombs drop bombing, the Democrats in Congress will join the inevitable ignorant "rally around the flag" patriotic fervor.  Most Americans have abandoned critical thinking and given in to mob psychology.  It does not matter if we are in the right in our wargames. it only matter if its "our team" against "their" team.  Never in my life have I had such fear for my country.  Not in the darkest days of Nixon or Reagan, or even Bush I.  We basically have a couple of sociopaths at the helms of power.

  •  My hands are up... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor


    Homo Homini Lupus Est p.s. I'm a Winknut, true.

    by coffeeinamrica on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:19:11 PM PDT

  •  This says it all, unfortunately (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidW in SF, armadill

    We have a vice president who is seriously unbalanced. We have a president who is seriously unintelligent. And we have an opposition party who is seriously unprepared for the challenge. It's a recipe for disaster.

  •  I point the finger at YOU because you had the (0+ / 0-)

    chance to embrace "The Switch" time and time again, yet you didn't because you're just too much of a wuss like most everyone else, so getting on board something that would send tsnami-like waves across the political spectrum was just too scary, eh? Better to just blow it off as the ravings of an alarmist nutjob with delusions of grandeur because the alternative wouldn't be very comfortable or conventional.

  •  We need a few of these (0+ / 0-)

    around the WH...

    Practice random acts of kindness (favorite bumper sticker)

    by Sally in SF on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:48:59 PM PDT

  •  BINGO!!! - WE HAVE A WINNER! (4+ / 0-)

    "..Pause for laughter again. The degree of my disdain for the toothless Democrats is indescribable. We are about to push into a second (third, depending on how you're counting) unimaginably stupid and reckless war - and they have no idea how to stop it. They are completely incapable of fighting back. I'm not even sure they know what's going on. They seem like feckless, clueless, sad little kids running around the hall as Vice Principal Cheney yells at them."

    ROFLMAO!

    You're right on the mark with that comment, Cenk.  

    "..The paper holds their folded faces to the floor, and every day the paper boy brings more...." - Pink Floyd

    by LamontCranston on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:25:46 PM PDT

  •  The timing of this article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lisastar

    is when Malarki is holding hands with Iamanutjob.

    dick is a sore loser since Iraq has allied with Iran. A consequence for his failed occupation. He does not peace in Iraq.

    dick is a pathetic bully picking on another third world country when China threatened to nuke our economy, the Saudis are killing Americans in Iraq, Russia is finishing the cold war and Pakistan is harboring OBL and his gang.

    Superpower?

    Not any more.

    Thanks to dick.

    Geez.

  •  If they were going to attack Iran, (0+ / 0-)

    They would have done so by now. They would have done by last f***ing year. They can't. All they can do is "think about it" because their forces are stretched to the breaking point in Iraq.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:13:54 PM PDT

  •  Watch all the "responsible" "serious" (0+ / 0-)

    foriegn policy thinkers line up right behind Bush and Cheney.

    Then they'll run against themselves for president.

    "Rhymes overflowin', gradually growin', everything is written in a code so it co-in- cide"- Rakim

    by brooklynbadboy on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:14:54 PM PDT

  •  I think more unnecessary war is coming our way (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    steelman, paige, blue vertigo, lisastar

    I think we're in for more unnecessary wars for the rest of our lives. Dems are so frightened of being labled "weak on terror" and so, like LBJ in Vietnam, will be forced into mindless military adventures to "reassure" the public that "Democrats can kick as, too!" and protect you from the "almighty Muslim terrorist." Osama bin Laden could not have asked for a better outcome to 9/11.  

  •  I hate to say that you're probably right (0+ / 0-)

    I would like to believe that no one would be so freakin' insane as to start a war with Iraq, but unfortunately we've been shown that we are being governed by lunatics.

    dress for dinner and be discreet.

    by moodyinsavannah on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:28:42 PM PDT

  •  This is what happens... (0+ / 0-)

    ...when one fails to learn from history's lessons, especially about trying to appease a ruthless, morally unfit, and illegitimate ruler like George W. Bush and his accomplices.

  •  Could be why the war czar is talking about a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohcanada, lisastar
  •  The Dem Congress had no right to go on vacation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lisastar

    anyone with half a brain could see this coming. If they don't come back immediately they do not deserve to have their jobs. And this goes for the GOP as well, but I don't give a rats ass about them

    Just Do ONE thing each day and you WIll make a differance

    by notimportant on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:56:47 PM PDT

  •  It bears pointing out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whenwego

    that even if this particular bloodthirsty NeoCon plan is stopped we have still lost horribly as a nation.  The very fact that Very Serious People can openly, publicly, proudly advocate nuclear war of aggression and pay no political or criminal penalty is start testimony to how debased our nation has become.  The corporate press has become so corrupt that they could blandly report live on Bush and Cheny eating still-live captured Iraqi children and repeat thier justifications like with no more comment than one would expect for a weather report.  The unspeakably grotesque and immoral has become acceptable under BushCo.  

    The Long War is not on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. It is on the American people.

    by Geonomist on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 07:13:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm telling you, the U.S. will NEVER recover (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paige

    from this, not in any of our life times, if ever. The slender thread of good will extended toward the United States at this time is in anticipation of a sane Democrat becoming president and Democratic victories in the House and Senate. Everyone outside the country and most of us inside the country are holding our collective breath, trying to figure out how much MORE DAMAGE Bush will do, hoping the Democrats and Republicans worried about re-election will contain him. If Bush/Cheney strike Iran, the intensity of the distrust and hatred toward the U.S. will increase multiplicatively. The middle east will be flames; our soldiers in Iraq and the NATO troops in Afghanistan will be in immensely more danger than they are in now.

    This "folie à plusiers" has got to stop.

    Republicans are afraid of the YouTube.

    by lecsmith on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:41:56 PM PDT

  •  Do you think Putin knows something? (0+ / 0-)

    After reading this diary and remembering a news story I read earlier in the week, Link to News Story got me to thinking Putin may know or suspect something as well.

  •  We have no hope? (0+ / 0-)

    JRE 2008
    The Presidency is NOT a family heirloom!

    by DrFrankLives on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:31:54 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for saying what a lot of us were (0+ / 0-)

    thinking and fearing. I spent the day writing another diary, for the IGTNT series on fallen soldiers, and now it looks like we're going to have to start another series. I'm heartsick...

    Save a Life, Adopt a Shelter Pet!

    The Republican party ... where Truth goes to die.

    by moneysmith on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:39:37 PM PDT

  •  The day we bomb Iran (0+ / 0-)

    suicide bombers will run rampant through our streets.

    It's more likely a bomb will go off here before, and as incitement to, any incursion we make across their border. The source of the attack here will never be fully resolved. The writing is on the wall.

  •  Impeachment is the Cure (0+ / 0-)

    There is hope, and we need to work hard while it still exists.
    Impeachment is the cure.

  •  How depressing (0+ / 0-)

    There should always be hope.........

    I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

    by gtghawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:47:54 PM PDT

  •  Time to brush up my Russian... (0+ / 0-)

    ...because they're going to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat yet again.

    It is to Madame Justice that I dedicate this concerto.

    by rifek on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:00:33 PM PDT

  •  We are not invading Iran (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner

    You all were saying the same crap last October, and you were wrong.

    We are not going to invade Iran, as long as the Netroots candidats pass laws that the President wants.

    And based on history, the President will get what he wants from the Netroots Congress.

  •  Cenk: You Putz (0+ / 0-)

    No hope?

    Then I guess there's little left for us but to quit our effort, give up the struggle, and crawl into a hole.

    Sorry, chump. I'm not following you on this

    it's about biconceptualism ... Obama08

    by wystler on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:50:39 PM PDT

  •  having just watched "Zeitgeist" (0+ / 0-)

    this almost seems to me like the least of our worries.

    You don't pay any attention to what your parents tell you, but you watch the way they live their lives...Tom Waits

    by lisastar on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:18:51 PM PDT

  •  You're Wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mediaprisoner

    Well, probably not about Cheney, and not about Bush. Probably not about Rice and Gates. Certainly not about Reid and Pelosi. Maybe not about the generals in Iraq, although I suspect that if you were in the same position you would be having a tough time deciding whether to resign (let's call it "abandon your troops") or stay on and try to get out with the least damage you could. Not about our Democratic politicians, certainly, who have proved to be some of the most spineless Quislings in history.

    No, you are wrong about us. We are not going to let this happen because we are going to put fear into the Democrats from the other side of the aisle. We are going to tell them to impeach the bastards, and if they refuse we are going to replace them.

    Help the cause by signing up challengers in the next Democratic primary. Please register them in our Contenders Registry, give generously to their causes, vote for them, and give them the nomination to replace ANY DEMOCRAT WHO REFUSES TO STAND UP TO (VICE) PRESIDENT CHENEY.

    They will only do it if they know that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of fighting to end the war and end the Bush Administration.

  •  the only sane and competent one's the aggie? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    we are Fucked.

    eventually, what's right becomes popular

    by mediaprisoner on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 12:19:36 AM PDT

  •  Cenk is a fool, no hope=fool (0+ / 0-)

    London calling to the underworlds-- come out of the cupboards you boys and girls....

    by yowsta on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:47:58 AM PDT

  •  National Strike (3+ / 0-)

    Now.

    Today.

    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 Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 02:29:52 AM PDT

  •  there is another way for this posturing to derail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    namely, that Iran builds/tests a bomb

    maybe not a pretty option,
    but as with North Korea, proliferation makes military strikes rather untasty

    personally, I think that bombing reactors in that are in fault zones is a pretty stupid idea - not to mention the idea of using 'low-yield' nuclear bombs to do so

    but then again, I don't think anyone's ever accused this administration of thinking too much

    "There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules." -Josh Marshall

    by grollen on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 04:32:36 AM PDT

  •  If we attack Iran... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo

    may God have mercy on the entire world. And this is coming from an atheist.

    Great diary, I need to think about it for a bit. There's a whole lot to absorb, thanks for your time.  :-)

    One thing I do know for sure is that the people of this country damn well better wake up and start protesting with every free minute they have. Do they even realize what the implications of a war with Iran would be? Sadly, I doubt it.

    No Retreat Baby, No Surrender

    by WI Dem on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 05:17:03 AM PDT

  •  The majority of insurgents come from Saudi Arabia (0+ / 0-)

    And Bush supplied insurgents of all strips with 1/3 of our arms.

    I can't believe they're trying to pull this shit again.

  •  OK, bets are on.... (0+ / 0-)

    How many Iranians stream across the Iraqi border to attack US troops when Cheney's shitstorm starts?

    How many in the US who are allied with Iran undertake terrorist attacks here?

    Does Iran point missles straight at the Saudi Oil Fields or at Israel?

    If Cheney wants his conflagration, he's going to get it.

  •  If you do not hope for the unhoped for (0+ / 0-)

    Heraclitus warns, "you will not discover it, since it is undiscovered and no paths lead there."

Rebecca, clio, nick danger, RichM, Kestrel, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, Baseballgirl, buffalo soldier, Donna Z, DeminNewJ, DavidW in SF, Best in Show, SteveLCo, Maccabee, coral, RF, LeislerNYC, mikepridmore, miriam, Cowalker, nolalily, Odysseus, kathygo, Sally in SF, samizdat, eleming, Rayne, alyosha, teacherken, ks, Sparhawk, natasha, CalifSherry, XOVER, glitterscale, Hornito, Liberal Thinking, areucrazy, timber, No Preference, tikkun, tryptich2, mickT, DelRPCV, Jeff Simpson, lrhoke, Raybin, tiggers thotful spot, Gator, alisonk, cosbo, hermit, artr2, gaspare, MontanaMaven, Powered Grace, JimPortlandOR, theboz, stumpy, janinsanfran, pelican, chadlupkes, dday, JTML, Sprinkles, TechBob, Emerson, tommurphy, eph89, Debby, Shockwave, Bernhard, wu ming, billlaurelMD, bornadem, baffled, wintersnowman, lysias, LEP, gaff98, linnen, rhubarb, Troutfishing, Earwicker23, eeff, iconoclastic cat, NCrefugee, Pompatus, azale, chicagochristianleft, blksista, frisco, dash888, marjo, RFK Lives, voltayre, Carnacki, object16, Walt starr, musicsleuth, cgilbert01, Jerome a Paris, hubcap, redtravelmaster, Nonie3234, Predator Saint, Vitarai, strengthANDwisdom, PKinTexas, memberofthejury, Bruce The Moose, DJ Adequate, eyeswideopen, frayster, DemInGeorgia, tyler93023, concernedamerican, Xeno of Elia, MC in NY, Justina, bronte17, KB, Joe Sixpack, jn2375, conchita, TracieLynn, EricS, DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou, Dazy, riverrun, BlackGriffen, wonkydonkey, annrose, nyceve, Diggla, whenwego, srkp23, awakentech, HippyWitch, ask, poemless, CalNM, Cool Blue Reason, obgynlover, PBnJ, Glic, vmibran, MisterOpus1, chimpy, roses, khloemi, AnneElizabeth, amberglow, cognitive dissonance, itsmitch, House, Miss Blue, Spud1, Swordsmith, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, doofusloser, rioduran, diana04, sydluna, antirove, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, bikko100, dksbook, aitchdee, Braindead, WeatherDem, kharma, khughes1963, hopesprings, nicta, antifa, milofischi, minorityusa, danthrax, sockpuppet, oldjohnbrown, jlynne, Quentin, pat bunny, lapolitichick, Sycamore, wordene, MTgirl, ssundstoel, TXsharon, Builderman, Nina, Andrea inOregon, exiledfromTN, cosette, Hawksana, peternight, Kidspeak, churchylafemme, jlamkin, Bulldawg, wilbur, Oy the Billybumbler, ii, Penny Century, mrgrandefromage, chachabowl, joliberal, snakelass, rockin in the free world, drangel, onemadson, thunt, lecsmith, lcrp, Blackstar, gnat, Democratic Hawk, Rxtr2, inclusiveheart, dcookie, dkmich, bwintx, jelmattrawy, zerelda, YetiMonk, randallt, donna and paul, Eckhart1234, WisVoter, Divertedone, Man Eegee, KayCeSF, Dormaphaea, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Marianne Benz, Steven D, xyz, bablhous, Knightrider, rickeagle, kd texan, adigal, BigBite, malcontent, liesl, Sybil Liberty, bibble, pontechango, TekBoss, Shapeshifter, Spam Spam Bacon Spam, colinm, environmentalist, My Philosophy, Sol Fed Joe, Illissius, Thirsty, drewvsea, kevsterwj, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, memophage, AttyDave4, profmarcus, rapala, ddp, Los Diablo, chumley, humphrey, mediaprisoner, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, farleftcoast, 3goldens, supak, Owl of Minerva, IntotheAbyss, jrooth, Alexander G Rubio, bellevie, el dorado gal, vtfinest, Todd42873, baccaruda, Marching Orders, JanetT in MD, CTPatriot, LisaZ, Independent Musings, bluewolverine, Alice Marshall, mjd in florida, OpherGopher, givemhellHarryR, mgris, blockbuster, PBen, ejmw, sap, KnotIookin, JohnB47, Ari Mistral, Newton Snookers, megrisa, DocGonzo, truong son traveler, TN yellow dog, zbctj52, ChemBob, snacksandpop, Brooke In Seattle, dj angst, mmcole, anonymousredvest18, YucatanMan, EJP in Maine, thefos, trinityfly, ratzo, boofdah, eru, owlbear1, jfadden, buckeyedem08, SaraBeth, keepinon, nailmaker, EconAtheist, washingtonsmith, Existentialist, thered1, dunderhead, GreyHawk, podster, Barcelona, Kayakbiker, lotlizard, QuickSilver, nwsound, abbeysbooks, illyia, lasky57, woobie, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Marcus Junius Brutus, minidriver, wulidancer, The Raven, CSPAN Junkie, Shotput8, Big Nit Attack, Bruin1815, witchamakallit, neroden, Gottayo, kerplunk, pinche tejano, deepsouthdoug, dsteffen, stillrockin, cschabes, Brian B, bookwoman, hcc in VA, Sigh, Arsenic, murasaki, JanF, rerutled, mightymouse, viscerality, melvin, Sister Havana, Tigana, noweasels, Jim P, TimeTogether, Mehitabel9, forbodyandmind, lcork, SSMir, taracar, MadGeorgiaDem, occams hatchet, Coherent Viewpoint, Shirley P, Showman, Shirl In Idaho, redstar, keefer55, methodishca, irishwitch, Do Tell, bee tzu, kraant, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, DrSpalding, TimFong, virgomusic, BlueInARedState, the freak, SciFiGuy, Gorette, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, Dvalkure, hoody, martyc35, buhdydharma, KenBee, jasoncinema, The Wizard, Evi1Twin, a gnostic, carolita, Sassy725, SarekOfVulcan, blueoasis, Alexandra Lynch, Farradin, ormondotvos, DarkestHour, tecampbell, global citizen, StrayCat, Tanya, A Siegel, Lashe, Glorfindel, Bush Bites, condoleaser, Data Pimp, DSPS owl, mrcoder, PapaChach, Sagebrush Bob, BalkanID, armadillo, Frank Cocozzelli, Rusty1776, bleeding heart, Preston S, el cid, Demena, ER Doc, Unitary Moonbat, buckinfuzzard, Pilgrim X, ChapiNation386, callmecassandra, LJR, JugOPunch, vox humana, profh, maerkwurdigleiebe, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, The Disenfranchised Voter, PoliOperative, Stripe, RantNRaven, judasdisney, The Scoutmaster, chgobob, shaharazade, AmySmith, trublu, Mary2002, FrankieB, kurious, Bernie68, pkbarbiedoll, Enough Talk Lets Get Busy, bstotts, Land Use Watch, kidneystones, Lurtz, duha, coolsub, mr science, Temmoku, takeahike, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, Unrepentant Liberal, NonnyO, BentLiberal, seabos84, eastmt, One Pissed Off Liberal, samfish, Noor B, fisheye, pfiore8, Ken in MN, PolecatEZ, donnamarie, khereva, Cronesense, jessical, pradeep, SparkleMotion, maddogg, Loudoun County Dem, dmh44, Opinionated Ed, blue vertigo, moodyinsavannah, Castine, ricsec7, cfaller96, suburi, EdSF, Proud Moonbat, DvCM, jeanette0605, HeartlandLiberal, Jimdotz, BehereBenow, mommyof3, Nordic Kossor, DWG, londubh, jasmint53, java4every1, Save Ohio Now, walkingdeer, todd in salt lake, Rex Manning, Canyon Lefty, NoMoJoe, stratocasterman, steamkettle, vbdietz, TheCorkBoard, Junglered1, SeaTurtle, Jack the R, rrheard, MaskedKat, leonard145b, Brahman Colorado, skod, A Person, Don midwest, Bikemom, Hens Teeth, B12love, Lena, Empower Ink, Linda in SFNM, solai, John Poet, Devsd, davewill, JeffW, Hippokleides, Shahryar, Kronos Blue, Chilean Jew, shanay, Foundmyvoice, Involuntary Exile, bythesea, Saint Saddam, Prairie Populist, Residentcynic, Mr Rick, North Country Dem, robroser, fatbyjhnsn, Happy Days, Brian A, peaceloveandkucinich, OrdinaryGal, pamelabrown, left my heart, icebergslim, Jake Williams, Missys Brother, home solar, gildareed, noddem, royalscam, Gemina13, moneysmith, paxmonger, Mentarch, william f harrison, o the umanity, LCA, shigeru, media whores, Tropical Depression, luckylizard, GWboosebag, DixieDishrag, gopher747, junta0201, leez34, jstott1701, to hell with George W Bush, Jung Jurks, A Man Called Gloom, Z A P P A, 59stevenm, Executive Odor, chadmichael

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.