SERIOUSLY BREAKING!! US forces storm Iranian consulate

With all of the talk during the speech about patriot missiles and aircraft carriers heading to the middle east, and with the Times of London's article last week outlining supposed plans for an Israeli attack.  It looks like we may have the opening salvo in Bush's "surge" on the map now.  

The BBC is now carrying a breaking story that the US stormed the Iranina consulate and supposedly arrested 5 people and confiscating computers/papers etc.

This was a well timed event.  Must have been happening almost simultaneous to the speech.  It would be impossible for a diplomatically important event such as this to occur without prior approval/planning from the top.  With the Admiral at the head of Centcom, a finished reshuffle of Bush's cabinet and with the need to set the Dems on their heals in the congress...we have this.

This is sure to swamp and Dem response to Bush's speech for the next media cycle.  Shuts the MSM down regarding the Dems's 100 hours...Get ready for the media blitz.

BBC article is here.  To be updated soon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

•  Please note that I already posted a diary

  on this about 15 minutes ago.

  by Lupin on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:43:25 AM PDT

  •  Yeah but this diary

    is breaking! for Christs sakes.

    by 789 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:44:41 AM PDT

    •  Have a bit of respect, please. This diary is

      SERIOULY BREAKING.

      by oculus on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:37:09 AM PDT

      •  Let's go for 20 snarky comments

        That way any of the comments about this actual subject will be pushed way down the page.

        by MD patriot on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:27:12 AM PDT

        •  That's better than 50 comments...

          on the appropriate use of TR.

          by Shiborg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:00:53 AM PDT

          •  Yeah!

            Plus, we need another 30 or so comments about protecting the Sanctity Of The FAQ and how trusted users must exercise their powers to ensure we read only the most correct diaries since we are apparently unable to discern that for ourselves.  That must be followed by a dozen comments demanding to know why some previous comment was trollrated followed by spirited defenses of same (with copious numbers of annotated links to previous discussions on the issue and actual citations in blockquotes from the FAQ and everything Hunter ever said).  A few GBCW posts would be helpful, too followed by retorts that if one thinks a diary is redundant they merely need not to read it.

            I have to admit, though, that "SERIOUSLY BREAKING" is an interesting new touch.  A BREAKING: SERIOUSLY UPDATED! title addition should be soon forthcoming, as well, I trust, fullowed by a link to a comment in the diary which provides some new factoid regarding the actual content.

            And then, BOTH breaking diaries should make the Recommended List.  Oh, wait.  That already happened.

            by Eddie Haskell on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:29:03 AM PDT

            •  Rice rejects dialogue with Iran, Syria

              Rice on Thursday rejected anew proposals for opening a diplomatic dialogue with Iran and Syria as a way to help stabilize Iraq.

              And...

              Reuters is reporting & has a pix

              US forces raid Iranian consulate in Iraq: Tehran

              As the overnight raid was in progress, President George W. Bush was vowing in a keynote address on American television to disrupt what he called the "flow of support" from Iran and Syria for insurgent attacks on US forces in Iraq.

              Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini condemned the raid -- the second such operation in the past month as tensions between Washington and Tehran have mounted -- and said it was a violation of international law.

              "The activity of all those people at our office in Arbil was legal and was in cooperation with and had the approval of the Iraqi side," Hosseini told Iran's state-owned Arabic language satellite channel Al-Alam.

              "There is no justification for this behavior of the Americans, particularly because Iraqi officials were not informed about this move."

              by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:31:56 AM PDT

      •  This diary

        is so full of typos and in need of proof reading & correction, that for me, it is seriously lacking in serious communication of information.

        by PinHole on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:58:21 AM PDT

      •  In time (usually about a nanosecond)

        seriously breaking morphs to seriously broken.

        by RudiB on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

        •  maybe serially broken (n/t)

          by RudiB on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:46:06 AM PDT

  •  Hmm...well to tell you the truth

    Neither is all that much of a diary. They are just both short re-wordings of a breaking news story. And I don't mean that as a put-down, just that they're both not containing much info....and probably worthy of and more appropriate in open thread comments.

    by BentLiberal on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:43:59 AM PDT

    •  Iran Summons Envoys - CBC is reporting

      U.S. detains Iranians in Iraq, Iran summons envoys

      by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:44:19 AM PDT

      •  Iranian Foreign Ministry just issued a Statement

        US Efforts to Impair Iran-Iraq Ties Doomed to Failure

        TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- We do not allow Americans to impair our relations with Iraq, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini stressed here on Thursday after US troops invaded Iran's consulate general in the Iraqi northern city of Erbil.

        by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:50:51 AM PDT

      •  Why does this administration's

        guiding question always seem to be 'well, how can we make things worse?'

        by sap on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:58:56 AM PDT

        •  Comment of the day. (nt)

          by willers on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:16:28 AM PDT

      •  Bush is doing everything

        possible to cause an Iranian "first strike" so he can finally get to use those nukes in Iran.

        Please, please, let there be a few men in Iran with the intelligence to stand up to Bush by not giving him cover for the attack. Bush’s attack on Iran must be so brazen that the international community will see Bush as what he is, and act to stop him. It’s clear he won’t be stopped domestically, as petrified as Bush may be of another nonbinding resolution.  

        If Iran responds militarily now, Bush will have the preposterous excuse he longs for.

        by Thistime on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:07:54 AM PDT

        •  Isnt that why he packed his Patriot Missiles into

          his speech and sent them out of Dodge?

          so he can finally get to use those nukes in Iran.

          by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:13:04 AM PDT

          •  Can you be more specific?

            I was only half listening last night. What did he say about Patriot Missiles?

            I’m starting to hate the Democrats; we need courage, the real thing. No one can pretend to be surprised when the escalation involves Iran, but the fucking majority party keeps its head in the sand

            by Thistime on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:16:23 AM PDT

            •  "Bush surprises with plans to use Patriots"

              To Counter Iran’s Role in Iraq, Bush Moves Beyond Diplomacy

              Mr. Bush also announced the deployment of Patriot missiles to protect America’s gulf allies. A battery of such missiles is already in Qatar, having been moved there several months ago.

              by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:27:14 AM PDT

              •  Shit. Thanks. nt

                by Thistime on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:14:50 PM PDT

        •  Isn't a consulate

          considered sovereign territory? Isn't this considered on par with invading Iran directly? Anyone here know what the diplomatic ramifications could be?

          by CheckM8 Groundling on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:15:17 AM PDT

          •  Yes, but the Pentagon says its NOT a consulate

            although the rest of the world says that it IS a consulate. Now, who are we gonna believe? The world? Or Bush's Pentagon?  

            by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:22:00 AM PDT

            •  Hmmm... world...Pentagon...

              world... pentagon....

              (weighing the credibility of the two in my mind...)

              Hmmm. Tough call.

              /snark

              by My Philosophy on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:26:50 AM PDT

          •  You remember the Iran Hostage Crisis?

            and how serious that deal was, when they took over our embassy and held our diplomats hostage? Well, we just did the same thing to the Iranians.

            And, yes, it is very serious. Serious in the "Act of War" kind of way. For more discussion on this point, see Americablog and Glenn Greenwald gives a rundown of the buildup of tensions with Iran over the past few months.

            by My Philosophy on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:25:01 AM PDT

            •  And that's why Reagan sucks

              Iran invaded the US, and Reagan sent Iran weapons.

              Do you want to think of that every time you see Reagan's face on a dime?

              by JohnGor0 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:09:43 AM PDT

          •  Didn't Jimmy Carter

            lose the WH because get all macho when the Iranians did the same thing to us?  

            by Thistime on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:17:35 AM PDT

      •  The elephant in the China shop

        Bush is just pushing his way around and breaking stuff. He doesn't care.

        by gjohnsit on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:03:48 AM PDT

    •  Maybe in the Bush Will Attack Iran Postings?

      Let's see - Bush says he's sending additional carrier forces and a Patriot Missile battery to the area, then he breaches diplomatic immunity to attack a foreign consulate?

      The bookmakers odds on Bush attacking Iran in the near future just dropped significantly.  

      by RepubAnon on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:58:59 AM PDT

      •  Salon is reporting Another Déjà Vu

        U.N. Nuclear Inspectors Arrive in Iran

        January 10,2007 | TEHRAN, Iran -- Two inspectors from the U.N. nuclear agency arrived in Iran on Wednesday to inspect the country's nuclear facilities, the official IRNA news agency reported.

        Iran's parliament urged the government in late December to re-examine its ties with the International Atomic Energy Agency after the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions against Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

        The two IAEA inspectors were conducting routine investigations of Iran's nuclear facilities in the cities of Isfahan and Natanz, the report said. They were expected to stay about a week.

        by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:12:26 AM PDT

        •  Should be a diary!!

          by mattes on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:18:24 AM PDT

          •  A seriously seriously breaking diary!

            by reef the dog on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:11:14 AM PDT

            •  DUDE! LIKE TOTALLY BREAKING!! - n/t

              by JohnGor0 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:11:38 AM PDT

      •  Financial markets aren't concerned

        One thing I do in the face of news like this is to see how the fish-eyed, cold-blooded, investors react.  (especially world markets, not just US domestic markets).  And...

        There has been no significant reaction to this raid.  European stock markets basically unchanged.  Gold is DOWN marginally.  Oil is DOWN.

        If this were as serious and imminent as we are reacting to it, gold and oil (remember, worldwide investors here) would be spiking up dramatically.

        So, while I am concerned, as is everybody else here, I want to inject a note of caution.   There may not be cause for imminent concern.

        by New Deal democrat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:35:17 AM PDT

        •  true, but it's barely out.

          American media doesn't seem that concerned about it. It's not on any of the US news sites from what I've seen.

          World markets are a different story and I'm not sure how it's being presented there (it's not a top story on BBC).

          by Politburo on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:48:25 AM PDT

        •  I think they read this first

          http://www.businessweek.com/...

          Note the UAE stopped buying euros with dollars until the price stabilizes.

          The US market may have a different outlook on this issue.

          We shall see in a few hours.

          by NCrefugee on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:53:41 AM PDT

          •  True. In a couple hours we'll know.

            European markets were open when BBC broke the news.  All but Sweden finished up for the day.  US markets starting out strong.

            For the record, though, dems in Congress should make sure that any anti-escalation resolution should specifically preclude expanding the war to other countries.

            by New Deal democrat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:04:49 AM PDT

        •  markets

          markets live in their own fanatsy land these days. To look to the market to tell you the geo political weather is absurd.

          God the nazis could be marching on half of Europe and the market would not react, and did not react.

          by pissedpatriot on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:06:21 AM PDT

          •  You got that right

            Remember NASDAQ at 5000? The market is often divorced from reality.

            by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:26:24 AM PDT

          •  re 1939, sorry, you're wrong

            per this Time magazine article this week.  The DJIA started downhill from a high about a week before the Nazi's started their invasion of Poland, and went into one of its worst, multiyear crashes, within 2 weeks after that.

            Again, as I've told the other commenters, I'm just pointing out that looking to a reaction (or not) to a breaking news story is a useful "reality check" preventing too much jumping to conclusions.

            BTW, I agree with you that there is an element of "fantasy land" in the markets right now, but that's another diary entirely.!

            Cheers

            by New Deal democrat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:35:10 AM PDT

        •  The financial markets didn't react to the 1914

          Sarajevo crisis until just a few days before World War One broke out (according to Ferguson's War of the World, which discusses the behavior of financial markets at the time.)

          by lysias on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:10:28 AM PDT

          •  Sorry, you're wrong. They did

            according to a Time magazine article published just this week.

            As soon as events moved beyond an assassination, with the first ultimatum on about July 28, markets reacted severely.

            Please note, I'm not trying to pick a fight here.  My point is that checking financial market reaction is a good "reality check" in a fast-moving, breaking story like this.  In this case, suggesting being cautious about leaping to conclusions.

            by New Deal democrat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:18:13 AM PDT

            •  Yes, after the ultimatum, i.e., nearly a month

              after the assassination, and a few days before war began.

              by lysias on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:09:52 AM PDT

              •  ok

                Actually, 2 1/2 weeks before it began, when people realised it was serious.  Recall that nobody in Europe really expected things to degenerate the way they did.

                Anyway, I see where some dems in Congress appear to be awake to the possibility of confrontation with Iran.  This is good news that you and I can certainly agree on, and let's hope that congressional opposition is successful.

                Cheers!

                by New Deal democrat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:28:14 AM PDT

                •  The first declaration of war was on July 27,

                  by Austria on Serbia.  A flurry of declarations of war followed, climaxed by Britain's declaration of war on August 4.  That's days, not 2 1/2 weeks.

                  by lysias on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:34:11 AM PDT

                  •  For some reason, I thought it was Aug 14.

                    but I'll take your word on it, since I have to go.

                    by New Deal democrat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:56:08 AM PDT

        •  Gold is up

          It started rising at midnight NY time from about $609/oz, peaking at $616 about 9 AM, and is now bouncing around between $611 and $613.

          http://www.kitco.com/...

          Oil is still down, due to mild weather in the NE and high supply.

          by Geotpf on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:11:32 AM PDT

          •  Gold is $1 down from 4 a.m.

            and also $1 down from yesterday and the day before.  There was a small $2 spike at about 10 a.m.

            So, basically, no move.

            And oil trading at about $53.  If we were on the verge of oily armageddon, Jerome would be writing his final, victory installment re $100 oil.

            Like I've said above, looking to what coldly rational investors are doing is a useful reality check on a fast-moving, breaking story.  I'm certainly not claiming anything beyond that. (and in fact, earlier in 2006, saber-rattling with Iran did cause some significant moves).

            by New Deal democrat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:22:59 AM PDT

            •  now THAT should wake everyone up

              by notimportant on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:44:41 AM PDT

      •  something tells me Bush knew what he'd find

        and we're going to be hearing about it.

        One of Colin Powell's last (half-hearted) acts was to talk about the laptop computer "walked in" to a U.S. embassy by a previously unknown Iranian source. The laptop was supposedly filled with Iran's nuclear plans. Perhaps because Powell didn't stress this as strongly as the cabal wanted him to (remember Libby's aspen letter, predicting the confrontation with Iran over nukes?), the laptop was reintroduced more than a year later as "new" evidence. It was then turned over to the IAEA and thoroughly debunked.

        So this is Plan B: another casus belli, and don't think it hasn't been in the works for a while. We're going to hear all about how Iran is "really" behind the insurgency, despite the almost universal resentment of U.S. forces in Iraq by Sunni (19% of the population) and Shiite (60% of the population) alike.

        I don't, for a minute, trust what our government will claim it discovered here. From forged Niger documents to laptops with fake evidence of a nuclear program, the Bush Administration has a track record for trumpeting false evidence. Must me suffer it all again?

        by QuickSilver on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:42:53 AM PDT

        •  as with the scheme to invade Iraq

          there is no Plan B here, in case things don't go according to script.

          Just as George W. Bush believed he could take over Iraq without significant American casualties, presumably decapitating the leadership and installing a puppet (like Chalabi), there is no Plan B for what might go wrong (and in my opinion, is guaranteed to go wrong) in the elaborate and longstanding scheme to subjugate Iran.

          They've doubled down on a pair of twos, and it's a terrible bet. The whole world will suffer for it.

          by QuickSilver on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:07:48 AM PDT

        •  Heres how Ws "mystery official" is justifying it

          At the Pentagon , a senior U.S. military official said the building was not a consulate and did not have any diplomatic status. The six Iranians were taken in a "cordon-and-knock" operation, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

          Although Iran's spokesman with a name says:

          Iran‘s Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told state-run radio that the raid was "against a diplomatic mission" since the "presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil was legal." Hosseini claimed the action by coalition forces reflected a "continuation of pressure" on Iran, aiming to "create tension" between Iraq and its neighbors.

          by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:19:56 AM PDT

          •  Well the Iraqis

            said it was a consulate, it was flying a flag IIRC, and the Kurds are PISSED.

            Just what we need - alienate our ONLY friends there and rile up about the only calm area in Iraq.

            by mmacdDE on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:00:27 AM PDT

            •  For sure, the Kurds are pissed

              Listen to the NPR reporter at the scene here

              by Compost On The Weeds on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:26:15 AM PDT

    •  I disagree... if something serious is breaking,

      there's not a lot of time to get the history of the issue and all the various opinions; sometimes it's just nice to have a diary like this to discuss the issue at hand, then over the next few days have the more serious, in-depth diaries about the details and the history....

      by L0kI on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:39:37 AM PDT

      •  Maybe there should be a separate "Breaking" queue

        ...where people post these kind fast breaking developments. That way they wouldn't need to compete and push down the diaries that spent more time in development and deserve as much time as possible on the Recent List.

        by BentLiberal on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:30:41 PM PDT

    •  There is value...

      I'm in the middle of teaching and don't have access to a tv.  I pop into KOS to see "whassup" in the world during breaks between classes.

      by Sharon Jumper on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:27:33 AM PDT

  •  Actually this guy wrote more

    than two sentences.

    by Sharon in MD on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:10:05 AM PDT

  •  Give me the linky link... nt

    by polecat on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:47:29 AM PDT

  •  Isn't it obvious

    That the government is trying to provoke Iran into and altercation then use that as an excuse to attack?

    I've never heard of our nation having such bloodlust for war. We WANT to attack Iran! I don't know if this is at the behest of Israel or about more oil, but it's obvioust that the neo-cons WANT to attack Iran!

    It also shows just how oblivious Bush is to the state of our military and our economy. Hell, he doesn't even CARE! Could this be some sort of "holy crusade" and the state he leaves our country in is irrelevant?

    I'll say this, if he orders a strike on Iran WITHOUT Congressional authorization, he WILL be impeached and removed for being in direct violation of the Constitution. And he'll hand the White House to the Democrats for the next 20-30 years.

    No neo-con will be elected anywhere because they have brought us to the brink of World War III.

    by StarkyLuv on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:59:39 AM PDT

    •  In their version...

      Neocons rule for the next 20 years cause the American public, in their minds, will rally behind them at the outbreak of WWIII (which they will start) because they are 'strong' and we will be afraid and need their 'protection'.

      It could happen. But, it is our job to make sure it doesn't go according to plan.

      by My Philosophy on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:33:21 AM PDT

      •  dont expect this crew

        to give up power this easily.

        you watch, they will do anything to maintain it

        by johnfire on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:06:44 AM PDT

        •  No argument there

          That is why we have to resolve to put the brakes on this insanity.

          by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:31:51 AM PDT

  •  And Lupin's diary reveals the nation (Iraq) and...

    ... town (Irbil) in which this incident is reported to have occurred!

    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:59:33 AM PDT

•  this explains why he acted and looked

  bizarre - he is a madman and and we all must do whatever it takes to stop him. Tonight I sent out an email blitz to my house rep and senators. Tomorrow I am hitting the phones and all members of the senate. No One can afford to be passive.

  by notimportant on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:46:27 AM PDT

  •  He isn't mad

    He's following the script.  This was laid out years ago.  Project for a New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses and the paper Clean Breaklaid it out.

    Bush and Cheney aren't nuts.  They're evil, but they are acting with reason and intent.  They are ruling class imperialists from the oil cartel elite.  They are in the positions they are to protect the interests of their peers, and prepare the US, both domestically and internationally for a new age.

    Peak oil is the driving force of the last 6 years of what we (as members of the "reality based community") call insanity.  It seems insane because there would be no justification for their behavior under normal, enlightenment thinking, secular humanist, or liberal christian ethical code.  They don't operate within such ethical frameworks however.  They serve power.  And as such, everything they do stinks of evil.  What they are doing is truly that.  It is not mad.  It is cold, calculated and evil.  

    I encourage us all to take action, but don't for one second think these guys are crazy.  Their reasons go way deeper than messianic hallucinations or father-son ego trips.

    by Orwell1984 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:59:31 AM PDT

    •  There would also be no justification if

      we spent a fraction of the money that we are spending occupying Iraq on research into alternative energy.

      by Spud1 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:25:36 AM PDT

      •  US Capitol toll free: 877-851-6437

        Call your congress critters- tell them to stop Bush's Iraq Escalation and possible attack on Iran.

        Bush is a madman who is out of control, and the timid congress critters who have been "keeping their powder dry" need to act now.

        by MD patriot on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:30:38 AM PDT

    •  New Century

      He's following the script.  This was laid out years ago.  Project for a New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses and the paper Clean Break laid it out.

      Did you catch this at the end of his speech?

      Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

      These things don't accidentally appear in speeches.

      by GOPhuckYourself on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:09:00 AM PDT

      •  Yep, heard it loud and clear

        It was a not so subliminal wink and nod to the PNAC rank and file ... essentially "I got it!".

        by Da Rock on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:43:17 AM PDT

        •  Did Richard Perle...

          Write the speech?

          by RF on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:50:50 AM PDT

          •  who wrote the speech

            Donald Kagan who didn't understand what happened in Athens and Sparta a few milenium ago is the one writing this scenario.  Hello.

            by ruthhmiller on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:22:22 AM PDT

            •  Son of Professor Kagan

              Don Kagan is the son of one of the world's leading experts on Athens and Sparta. Funny, isn't it?

              by Morgan in Austin on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:49:25 AM PDT

              •  Whoops - - got my Kagans mixed up.

                It's Don who is the big honkin expert. His creepy kiddos Bobby (PNAC) and Freddy (American Enterprise Institute) are the ones I would have expected to be writing last night's speech.

                Isn't there a way to delete/edit my prior comment?

                by Morgan in Austin on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:55:06 AM PDT

      •  Who still remembers

        'New World Order'?

        by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:42:01 AM PDT

    •  now now...you can both be right

      He is  a madman following a script.

      There.  That was easy.

      by Cheez Whiz on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:00:42 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, he could care less about Osama

      This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces.

      Um, the guy who did us actual damage is in Pakistan, asshole.

      by Tuffy on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:05:33 AM PDT

    •  Scripts and Madness

      Following imperialistic scripts that are years out of date rather than responding to the reality now is, in fact, being mad.

      by figleef on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:06:07 AM PDT

    •  You have said it better than anyone

      I haven't seen it articulated better by anyone.  They are rational and following a plan.  However, I think they have to be crazy to think it will work.

      by real world chick on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:46:55 AM PDT

      •  Keep repeating the mantra

        because Orwell1984 is right. I enjoyed the madness and insanity riffs for the last few weeks. But it won't get us anywhere. So spread the word

        by notimportant on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:48:09 AM PDT

    •  Dob't think that plan

      inckuded the war doing this poorly.
      I reralize they don't care much about the life of peons or the cost to taxpayers (unless if in a draft it was their kids or if economies actually collapse)

      But this degree of chaos doesn't fit with getting in there and getting the oil. We might be able to use this as an excuse to expand the war but that should have been done long ago under a not crazy evil plan.

      The plan for oil isn't crazy, just greedy and eveil. The way it's being done, that's crazy.

      by joynow on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:09:24 AM PDT

    •  War is becoming more profitable

      than oil...

      by mattes on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:22:24 AM PDT

    •  The Japanese are using whole house fuel cells

      already, they are ahead because they spend money on research and development rather than weapons and they don't have the luxury of old oil. They are thinking past a grid.

      Bush and friends are so incapable of any vision past their pocketbooks. I look forward to a new President who still knows about good old USA creativity and innovation.

      by ohcanada on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:58:32 AM PDT

    •  It's not either/or.

      They can be both evil and mad. There's two of them, after all!

      I think it's quite clear that Cheney is evil in the classic sense of the word (see Scott Peck's People of the Lie). But Bush isn't just Cheney's puppet, doing everything exactly as he advises; it might have started out that way, but it's not true any more. Bush is the one with the actual power to act. Everything Cheney advises gets funneled through Bush's madness -- which is a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. And Bush is visibly crumbling under the stress of not being adored as he requires.

      This has happened many times before in the history of the world.

      The outcome for the nation so afflicted has never been good.

      by Canadian Reader on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:03:22 AM PDT

  •  Just like he looked reading My Pet Goat!!

    this explains why he acted and looked bizarre - he is a madman

    by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:16:44 AM PDT

    •  Certainly you're not implying that...

      Naw. I won't even go there.

      by JeremyA on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:54:37 AM PDT

      •  I think we already are : ( n/t

        by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:20:38 AM PDT

        •  Besides "Say what you like about George Bush..."

          "but no one can accuse him of following the crowd. When everyone from the American electorate to the US military brass, along with a rare consensus of world opinion, cries out with one voice to say "enough" of the war in Iraq, Bush heads in the opposite direction — and decides to escalate."

          It's beyond Bush to resolve Iraq

          by Sigrid of Horg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:39:33 AM PDT

          •  That is his draw to the wingers

            They love his anti-everything anyone else wants stance. If you read some of the Red sites you will see that any reference to doing the opposite of what the majority wants becomes a jihad for the minority.

            I'll bet the hard core right always cheats on games. They code in the "can't die" on their video games and "win" and then brag about it.

            by Da Rock on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:49:21 AM PDT

  •  I thought they superimposed the top part of his

    face onto someone else's mouth and chin.
    There was too much distance between his nose and
    lips.  And
    He never smirked.    Something was seriously odd.

    by Cassandra77 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:32:44 AM PDT

    •  It was the liberry

      All those words and books freak him out.

      by voltayre on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:45:11 AM PDT

    •  Maybe he hired some ex-Saddam look alikes

      Draw a mustache on bush ... hmmmmm

      by Da Rock on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:51:16 AM PDT

    •  Stiff upper lip, eh?

      Actually, I wouldn't discount your suggestion of 3D photoshopping.  Some people are saying that he looked too thin...

      by DSPS owl on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:10:49 AM PDT

    •  Agree. His diction was almost normal.

      I was trying to figure out how they were feeding him the lines.  He didn't appear to be reading the teleprompter (he always sounds like a third grader giving a report when he does).

      He didn't have his flip chart book with the really big print...

      Do you think that he could actually memorize the speech?  NO WAY.

      by hoody on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:49:29 AM PDT

    •  George W. Headroom

      gave the speech. Isn't it wonderful what the modern  NSA Computer Graphics Directorate can do?

      by NCrefugee on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:59:11 AM PDT

    •  He wasn't looking at the camera...

      but at Dick Cheney standing next to it, holding his cue cards and a shotgun.

      by Shiborg on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:07:29 AM PDT

    •  A prezbot baby!!! n/t

      by DrWolfy on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:33:30 AM PDT

  •  he looked like vlad the impaler last night

    deranged and crazy!

    by dumbya on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:45:14 AM PDT

•  Expect some nicely forged documents

  to implicate Iran in aiding the Iraqi insurgents.  After all, it wasn't far from Irbil where the CIA and Mossad help build and operate Ahmad Chalabi's forgery workshop which sourced so much of the disinformation to kickstart the war and occupation in Iraq.

  Nothing succeeds like success.  Nothing exceeds like excess.  

  We're going to be showing off some pretty forged documents soon, and not give the Iranians much airtime to deny them before attacking.

  by LondonYank on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:50:48 AM PDT

  •  Thanks to Mossad

    A bunch of bigot NASCAR watching rednecks are secretly in love with the Jews but they just don't know it.

    IslamoFascist? Bring it on baby. Hannity is the man and Mossad is the shizzel.

    by 789 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:54:46 AM PDT

    •  Huh? n/t

      by Spud1 on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:23:39 AM PDT

  •  Interesting how any time we need "proof" that

    there's nasty terrorists out there to hurt us, we "find" documents (conveniently in English of course) that fit the bill.  Aren't we lucky?

    by newhorizon on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:39:42 AM PDT

•