Saudi Paper: Prepare for radioactive fallout. Now.

According to Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque,

... the Saudi government is now preparing plans to deal with "any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards" that may arise from an attack on Iran's nuclear reactors. This was reported by a top Saudi newspaper, Okaz, and relayed by a leading German news service, dpa -- one day after Dick Cheney paid a visit to the kingdom. As we noted, no one knows exactly what was said at that confab of allied authoritarians -- but something sure lit a fire under the Saudis, and convinced them that urgent action is needed to brace for the lethal overspill from a strike on Iran.

Floyd points out that nothing in Saudi Arabia becomes the top news story without government approval. That such a story should be released the day after Cheney's visit, sends a message to everyone about what is on Cheney's mind.

Combined with the dismissal of Fallon, Petreus' claim to have evidence (which he doesn't produce) that Iran was responsible for the recent shelling of the Green Zone, and the Egyptian report that a nuclear sub has been ordered by Bush into the Gulf, the bleak picture in both Pakistan and Afghanistan (accelerating collapse of Musharraf's power and strategy, the coming spring offensive in the Taliban's announced drive for Kabu), ...

plus the oft-stated desire of Bush and Cheney to attack Iran, and, as noted by former mideast policy official William K. Polk at Juan Cole's site just a few days ago, the last time Cheney visited the nations he visited this time was right before the Iraq attack.

plus, only a moron would deny that Bush and Dick have nothing but contempt for the will of the people, congress and the courts, and crave war like a junkie craves his fix,

AND

the coming Presidential election

well, add all that together...

Polk's essay linked above is a very compelling assembly of all the reasons it looks like an Iran attack is in the making and will soon be launched. I can only hope the Saudi King looked at Dick Cheny and said "Go fuck yourself.'  Not that that would change any of his plans.

Should it happen, remember that any release of nuclear materials, or use of nuclear weapons will be an attack not only on Iran, but the entire region with fallout reaching even the US eventually.

Which of our candidates, who among our Democratic leadership, will speak out strongly to stop this coming nightmare?

•  If they wanted to do it, why would they say it?

  This is just more posturing. They aren't going to war with Iran.

  by jkennerl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:59:16 PM PDT

  •  At least

    This is not evidence that they are planning an attack, I should say.

    by jkennerl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:27 AM PDT

    •  Even so

      This sort of brinkmanship is idiotic.

      by shock on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:08:02 AM PDT

      •  It's his Viagra. n/t

        by sagesource on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:25:21 AM PDT

    •  Well, the only proof you or I could have

      is if we sat in on a meeting with Bush and Cheney. Why they would say it, I think, would have something to do with laying down the basis for justification and conning the people into going along with it.

      What do you suppose Cheney was meeting with all those Mideast nations for all of a sudden?

      by Jim P on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:09:30 AM PDT

      •  Remember this...?

        by Annalize5 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:41:47 AM PDT

  •  Read Polk's long article at Juan Coles

    linked in the diary. It's a summary of a US News and World Report article, plus his own informed insights.

    And, given what we know, do you think Bush and Cheney are actually bloodthirsty madmen, or just like to act like that to intimidate Iran? If you lived in Iraq, what would your opinion be, do you suppose?

    by Jim P on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:07:09 AM PDT

    •  I'm Just Guessing

      Blood thirsty madmen?

      by SherriG on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:13:36 AM PDT

      •  You ever see "Mars Attacks"

        the Martians walking along shooting everything in sight while speakers blare "we come in peace."

        by Jim P on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:32:30 AM PDT

  •  because they're nuts!!

    I hear that mentioning Nazis is supposed to mean I lose the argument right away but it does remind me of...

    If Hitler wanted to do it, why would he say it? This is just more posturing. He isn't going to invade Poland.

    To sociopaths the idea of announcing whatever crazy thing you're about to do and then doing it, provides an extra thrill.

    by Shahryar on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:17:59 AM PDT

    •  Actually, to say that they're nuts

      is an oversimplification. Clearly, they're nuts, but of the "rational" sort, in the sense that there's a method to their madness. This isn't simply about a handful of powerful men's mad dreams of empire, glory and profit (although, of course, that's part of it). This is also about these men's belief that the collapse of the USSR in the post-cold war period and the power vacuum that it created, along with the coming (if not passing) of peak oil, along with the rise in power of Russia and China, who were not yet able to militarily compete with the US, but would likely be able to in a decade or two, fueld by Russian natural resources, and Chinese goods, presented both unique opportunities for US global gain, along with unique global perils for it, that in their minds we would be both foolish and irresponsible to not address properly. As they saw it, if we didn't do certain things now, we'd not only forsake a unique historical opportunity to become the world's sole and lasting hyperpower, which we only had a decade or so to become, but endanger ourselves as Russia and China rose in wealth and power, and the rest of the world aligned with them against us. It wasn't just about maximizing our potential power and gain, but minimizing our potential peril and loss. Seen from a certain perspective, this was an entirely rational analysis, and response.

      It was also, of course, not the only possible rational analysis or response to these dangers and opportunities--let alone the most moral, astute and wise ones--just the ones that people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc., decided were the right ones. And thus the last 7+ years. This was all planned out well in advance. I don't know about 9/11, but Iraq was clearly a major part of it, as now appears to be Iran. In their minds, for their plan to work, they HAVE to attack Iran, or else it all falls apart. A strong Iran means that we have to stay in Iraq forever, which even they know we cannot afford to do. A weak Iran though means that we can leave Iraq without its needing to be too strong and stable. Their relative weakness will be good enough for our needs (as they see these needs, of course). So it's not merely a matter of wanting to attack Iran, but rather a matter of needing to attack Iran, for the policies of the past 7 years to make sense, and come to fruition. It doesn't mean that they will attack Iran, as various forces are working against them. But I believe that if they're not assured of a McCain victory, which would make an attack on Iran less urgent, because they'll have 4 more years to do it, they will do everything within their power to attack Iran before they leave office. I can't imagine that they won't try. The question is whether they'll be able to, or, barring that, whether they'll be able to assure McCain of the presidency.

      Incidentally, it is precisely such thinking, i.e. a desire to both exploit windows of opportunity and forestall emerging threats, that motivated the Nazis, so I don't think that Godwin is really an issue here. I've made the comparison myself at times. If neoconservatism is about projecting and employing military power to both defend one's interests and expand one's power globally, then both Hitler and Cheney are neocons. I can't see any other way to look at it. Certainly from what I've seen of Cheney he wouldn't hesitate to employ at least some of the tactics and methods that they Nazis used. And, in reality, he already has--torture, illegal imprisonment and domestic surveillance, propaganda, invading non-threatening countries, military expansion, etc. The difference right now is more a matter of scale, not nature. And that too might change eventually, if he and his fellow neocons are able to take this much further. I'm not convinced that they can, or will, but that's more a matter of ability than will. The will is there, but the conditions may or may not allow it.

      We are being ruled by, and at the relative mercy of, "rational" madmen. I simply can't view it any other way that makes sense to me. That "So" that he uttered to Martha Raddatz the other day sent creepy chills up my spine. The man is a complete and utter sociopath. Of that I have zero doubt. This is not a normal or well person. Major screws loose here, in the moral and mental departments, even if he's also very, very smart. Not unlike, um, well, you know. The only question is whether he'll be able to take this all the way. I'm not sure that he can, or will. But I'm no expert, just an observer.

      And as a hopefully irrelevant aside, I find it hugely disturbing that Hillary would feed right into the neocon agenda by essentially promoting McCain over Obama on matters of national security, foreign policy and the military. It's almost like she's in on it, and if she can't win, she want McCain to win. I know that I'm seriously crossing over into tinfoil hat territory here, but as her consiglieri Mark Penn likes to say, it "raises serious questions". We are truly living in strange and frightening times.

      by kovie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:52:47 AM PDT

      •  Interesting Points

        Liked your description and viewpoint. I stated some years ago on this blog that in order to create a dictatorship in America 2 things were necessary.

        1. An external crisis such as a war.

        2. An internal constitutional crisis of unbelievable magnitude.

        9/11 was the engineered by this administration to fulfill the requirement of Part 1. Result: America wen to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorist.

        The internal crisis was however prevented from occurring by The Zero's Solution. Constitutional Rights were abridged after Part 1 but fizzled since the case they had hoped to throw in America's face was hijacked. The Zero's Solution destroyed the ability of anyone to ever create such a massive Constitutional crisis of the magnitude required to destroy Democracy.

        The ultimate goal however is now to create so much chaos across a very wide spectrum of the social, political and economic sectors of the world that the only sane way (at least as how the neocon's see it) is to expand the war from a regional conflict to a world wide conflict.

        When this unhappy event occurs, however it may occurs (Attack on Iran, Nuclear Terrorist Event etc...), widespread rioting by the general population in America will trigger martial law in the name of national security.

        Should these events occur before this next election. The election will be aborted until after the domestic crisis is dealt with and security is restored in all cities through out America.

        Say goodbye forever to Freedom, Justice and America.

        Tin hat time I hear someone in the peanut gallery say? Take a real hard look at America today. Listen to what The People and not the media or politicians have to say . Most of these American's are wearing a tin hats and blinder's these days because it's the only way to deal with the sky that is falling.

        What's coming next is really going to hurt a lot. Gee, I think I've said this a very long time ago. No one listened then. I have no clue if anyone is listening now.

        If I'm blogging here it only means that virtual reality is down for maintenance today.

        by hmsjo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:12:27 AM PDT

        •  Careful with the 9/11 CT here

          It's a bannable offense, which I happen to agree with since it's so controversial and for which the evidence that I've seen is unconvincing at best. I'm willing to entertain the idea that they allowed it to happen, but not that they actually did it.

          In any case, I'm not convinced either that dictatorship is a done deal. Possible, yes. Unavoidable, no. The conditions are there, should things break their way. We're probably closer to it than we've ever been, but since this is uncharted territory in an established democracy, no one can categorically say what will happen. Their plans could fizzle out before being implemented. They could try your scenario and see it backfire. Or they could try it and see it succeed. Lots of unknowns here, on our side as well as theirs'. They're not omnipotent or omniscient, and could well fail, whatever they try to do. Still, not a reassuring time to be in. Anything could happen. ANYTHING.

          I'm being fatalistic about it all. Whatever happens, happens. All that we can do is do what we can to prevent the worst. Beyond that, it's in fate's hands.

          by kovie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:23 AM PDT

          •  Banned? I don't think they have the guts to do it

            Kos and the gang of media elitist who run this site know for a fact that what I've said over the last 7 years or so is the truth and if anyone in America can "Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt" it's me.

            The Kingdom of Infinia' is not going away ever! These people who understand legalese realize that the only way to prevent anyone else from believing what is the truth is to label it tin hat. The facts and the documents I have that support such facts do not change however much these people would like to change them.

            Your living in a dictatorship. It's that simple. It's the perfect corporate state these day's. The voter's will vote how the big money tells them to vote. It's not about who you vote for anymore. The Corporate Criminals who own 98% of the world wide wealth could care less who runs America as long as they are on the list as accepting their money for becoming President.

            Why any sane person would actually want the job is beyond comprehension. Which is why most American's never vote for the incompetent's and social misfit's who do actually want the job.

            The one thing which should be obvious to anyone who knows how to use the brain they have is that G.W. has proved that any incompetent moron can be President as long as he panders to the Corporate World concept of cheap labor to produce cheap products that can be sold at outrageous prices to the very same cheap labor force that created the products in the first place.

            It's why the rich get richer and your life as a mere worker just sucks the big one.

            As to being banned let's just say that I could care less because Dkos inflates it's readership numbers by not having a delete account button any where to be found in the account section. Even if you are banned your still counted as a subscriber so they can charge the max for the ad space. There is a word for this type of activity. I'll give you a clue because it starts with the letter F and ends with D

            What a joke. Go tell Kos to ban me and I bet he will never do it cause I scare Kos and the people on this site who have the smarts to figure it out silly.

            Can't say that I blame them really. I scare myself silly all the time knowing what I know and knowing there are enough people now who know The Zeros' Solution presents the truth.

            by hmsjo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:52:11 AM PDT

            •  Oooooooooooookay...

              by kovie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:16:58 AM PDT

  •  So all the talking heads were saying in 2002

    about Iraq. How'd that work out?

    by johnsonwax on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:35:32 AM PDT

  •  Dont count it out

    1) They're violent fools

    2) They only have ten months left in power, and then they can walk out and leave the mess to the next guy, a guaranteed Enemy.

    3)No, they don't have the resources to fight another conventional ground war with all those forces committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So they can't attack Iran conventionally.

    4) But they have made it clear that they want to mess with Iran, and

    5) Nuclear bombing isn't conventional war. It's a whole different set of resources that has been sitting on the sidelines doing nothing.  They can dump a Bomb or two and, no doubt they believe, walk away washing their hands.

    There is nothing to stop them except, perhaps, the moral courage of the military officers receiving these dumb-ass orders.
    

    by cynndara on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:00:20 AM PDT

    •  There is nothing these people wouldn't do

      I think that this is clear by now.  The "So" comment was indicative that they don't CARE what anyone else thinks.  Will they attack Iran?  I'd lay dollars to donuts they will inflate any supposed threat to excuse it, and use the AUMF to defend their actions.  In fact, they've already indicated that this would be their rational.

      These people don't need to invade, they can just toast Iran with a nuke - and somehow they think our troops would be immune to fallout, even though they are in a direct line of fallout.... frankly though, I don't think these neocons care even if they directly nuked our troops.  I swear they are using them up till they are of no use.  Iran should be insisting on negotiations through the UN right now, and raising a big stink, but they seem to be cowed.

      I hope our military will stand up to them.

      If they nuke Iran?  Watch out for the reaction of China and Russia.  They are allies with Iran, they have bases there.  It won't be pretty.

      by Hummingbird on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:27:19 AM PDT

  •  Yes... the benficient Bu$hitco only postures....

    wanna buy a bridge?

    To doubt anything these criminal traitors might do is simply deluding yourself.  

    by FightTheFuture on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:39:44 AM PDT

•  If they attack Iran under these conditions

  theres nothing we can do.  We would be living in a rogue nation.  Iraq would explode if Iran is attacked, there would be no way to keep the gov't together.  

  by Hope08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:09:30 AM PDT

  •  Our Troops...

    in Iraq will be sitting ducks.  Look for a precipitous increase in U.S. troop deaths if Cheney bombs Iran.

    by rlharry on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM PDT

•  I think

  Cheney probably told the Sauds that all bets were off as they can forsee a tumultuous 2008 in Iraq,Afganistan,and elsewhere. It seems improbable and almost stupifying that they might actually attack Iran but these guys..ya never know.

  by Hawkjt on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:10:33 AM PDT

•  cough..Kyle-Lieberman..cough..Hillary..cough..

  hack..traitor..snort..cough.

  by HillarysWar on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:13:02 AM PDT

•  I imagine many days and nights of bombing

  but not an all out ground war. I could see them trying to literally draw the Iranians into Iraq and that then being an excuse to stay there longer and then perhaps later expand the Iraq war into Iran without ever declaring a new war . ipso facto tadda ! 2 wars for 1 ! (Frontline was amazing tonight, btw, part 2 tomorrow)

  by dantrotheplanetman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:20:40 AM PDT

  •  The Frontline documentary should be...

    required viewing.

    I felt as if I'd known before that this whole nightmare had been orchestrated by the PNAC.

    What I didn't know was there were probably 4/5 people that pulled it off.

    Would they bomb Iran? No question.

    by Annalize5 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:36:39 AM PDT

    •  a lot of education in PBS's

      "Bush's War" (Part 1).

      It looked like it was going to be a re-hash, and at times it was. But the insights and clarity about the manipulated steps to war were often newly sourced.

      W, himself, sometimes asks the right questions. Cheney is their to orchestrate deception.

      What motivates Cheney? There's the question for historians to work on.

      by BWildered on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:46:45 AM PDT

      •  What motivates Cheney?

        That one's easy. See my long comment above. A number of noted historians, foreign policy experts and other observers would agree with me. Short version: it's about empire and self-protection. The cold war is over, there's a power vacuum, but Russia and Chine are rising, and will be threats someday. But right now there's a brief opportunity to both prevent them from being serious threats and become the world's sole long-term superpower. Securing the world'd major supply of oil is the key, not only for us to have it, but for them to NOT have it. That's what Iraq and Iran are all about. Anyone who still thinks that it's about terrorism or Saddam or Iran being a threat to the region or world needs to have their head examined.

        His motivations are entirely rational, even if also wrongly thought out AND evil.

        by kovie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:58:27 AM PDT

        •  that "brief opportunity" only exists

          if you think nukular war in winnable.
          Otherwise the pattern of rising and falling global empires continues unabated.

          The USA accelerates its demise when it schemes to prevent it.

          by BWildered on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:42:32 AM PDT

          •  I didn't say that I agree with it--I don't

            just that this is how Cheney appears to think about contemporary geopolitics. He's a Kaiser Wilhelm II/Hitler who thinks that he's a Metternich/Bismarck. Ok, so maybe he's not out to extirminate a race or two. But that hasn't exactly prevented hundreds of thousands of innocents from needlessly dying. So what's the real difference?

            As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good "intentions". And I'm sure that on some level, Cheney believes his intentions to be good.

            by kovie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:02:20 AM PDT

          •  Nuclear war

            is a lot more palatable to those who believe it can be kept "safely" three thousand miles away on the other side of the globe.  These are people who fundamentally fail to grasp the interconnectedness of global ecosystems, not to mention the "domino" type effects of mass migrations.

            We are blessed to live in Interesting Times.

            by cynndara on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:13:01 AM PDT

            •  what do you expect

              From folks who don't believe in science?

              by Hummingbird on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:34:09 AM PDT

        •  It's a lot simpler than that

          it's about greed, pure and simple.  He's hungry for things that can only be gotten through destruction, and part of what he's hungry for IS destruction.

          Did I mention he's also very paranoid?

          by Hummingbird on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:33:06 AM PDT

          •  Same thing, really

            His version of greed is a bit more complicated than most peoples'. As are his paranoia, megalomania and ferocious animosity towards others. Major screws loose there.

            by kovie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:12 AM PDT

•  You hear that vibe?

  That is the old drumbeat for war. Patraeus and this and McCain's "slip". Cheney and the neos are unhinged. Here is the real story. not Wright or Hillary's mood or any of that. We have already signed off on this as far as this administration is concerned.Brinksmanship, maybe, but they really want to do this and I think Russia and China might disagree. Good god give me some real diplomacy..It got off track last time with the NIE report, but those are scaled back and private now.

  by woodstock007 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33:15 AM PDT

  •  Precisely why I penned this essay.

    for DKos' audience.

    Here is the real story. not Wright or Hillary's mood or any of that.

    People are losing track of the real issues, all around, imo

    by Jim P on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:38:04 AM PDT

    •  Aware People are Leaving...

      ...the US daily for safer nations.

      by Pluto on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:50:29 AM PDT

      •  Speaking as an expat,

        there are no safer nations. There are saner ones though.

        by northsylvania on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:16:06 AM PDT

        •  Excellect Point

          I'll take sane. Oh, and simple and happy would be nice. And walkable.

          by Pluto on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:32:27 AM PDT

      •  Like in "On the Beach?"

        I don't think it will be a devastating radioactive belt like that movie and it's remake, but just the fact that there will be fallout drifting over America is going to freak people out, seriously. And if it really gets out of control, you can try to flee to Australia, but that just gives you a few more months to slowly succumb to the sickness, with the accompanying distribution of suicide solutions and icky vomiting and hair loss if you wait too long.

        by Uosdwis on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:20:54 AM PDT

        •  More likely

          from a "limited" dump on Iran, the majority of the fallout will be limited to India, Siberia, and China.  Until the Chinese decide to retaliate, of course.

          by cynndara on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:15:24 AM PDT

  •  Makes one wonder whether what's going on

    in Tibet is really indiginous unrest, or the work of the CIA, to distract China and keep it busy with internal matters (which it already is with the Olympics).

    by kovie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:00:15 AM PDT

•  According to My Favorite...

  ...European Banking think-tank:

  Attack on Iran summer 2008: Dollar collapse raises probabilities to 70 percent

  The collapse of the US currency against all the other major currencies, and against oil and gold in particular, conveys a risk of attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel and the US before the end of summer 2008. As a matter of fact, ___ estimates that the probability for such an attack to take place before the November 2008 US election, is 70 percent...

  This was published quite recently, and many investment funds have already formed to hedge on this. 70% is pretty good odds.

  (Of course, we'll have to "postpone" the 2008 election...)

  by Pluto on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:37:11 AM PDT

  •  Come on...

    Nobody can say the probability is 70%. That's nothing more than a wild ass guess. It's not like you can plug this psychotic administration's thinking into some mathematical formula and get a meaningful result.

    by Olds88 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:01:55 AM PDT

    •  How do you think

      the german insurances are making their profits.
      By guessing? No way, belive me they have their formulas for cost vs risk calculations. And the facts are known even if they are not massmediapublished.
      So it will not be a spurprising natural disaster (with wich they normaly still make profits). No the writing was long on the wall to read for everybody.
      And you people will demand a reason for the destruction of the nation(dollar)
      and hey iran is easier to swallow than wallstreet or
      the white house you know they are here to protect
      the people. Unthinkable that they are just
      looter's who are destroying the country for their own profit and friends. And a question at the end:
      Is it good or bad that the oilprice is as high as it is right now ( Bush said the truth the iraq war is a huge success You just have to find out for whom)?

      by gerald 1969 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:50:46 AM PDT

      •  Either the Bush/Cheney administration is

        planning an illegal war or they are not. The probability is either 100% or 0% and only people within the administration would know for sure. If they are planning to do this, it has already been decided independent of external considerations-- it's not like they will cancel an attack if the dollar suddenly gains against other currencies.

        by Olds88 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:33 AM PDT

        •  What a small world you are living

          have some imagination. think of it like a huge distraction from the real battelfield THE ECONOMY.
          the german thinktank studied the avaliable data and by comparing it to other countrys in similar situations and what happened to this countrys in history.It is not the iraq war that is destroying
          the dollar it is the fact that you are BORROWING that money.This famos lootingstrategy destroyed the ottoman empire, the british empire, the german empire, the roman empire just the chinese empire was brought down by some british opium dealer.
          So if it is either 100 or 0 you should step back a little to get a new perspective. The world is never that easy i am afraid.
          greeting from germany
          maybe you find a way to avoid it
          we failed miserably
          i realy wish you all the best
          and good luck

          by gerald 1969 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:33:57 AM PDT

          •  Wow, how enlightening

            Gee, we are borrowing this money? Really? We had no idea. And that's a dangerous strategy, you say? Who knew?

            You might find people here have been well aware of the Republican's rampant debt spending on military expansion and perpetuation of a war culture over the past few decades.

            You might also find we are aware of the fact that the dollar's former position as the global reserve currency enabled that massive debt-- and that the administration's wars of conquest are related to the ending of that position.

            Finally, you might find we are aware of how the middle class can be radicalized by merciless economic effects such as hyperinflation., how they can be persuaded that their circumstances aren't due to economic reality, but, instead, foreign enemies and domestic daggers in the back.

            None of that can be used to calculate a probability of war with Iran. If the Bush/Cheney administration intends to wage an illegal war, it has certainly already set it's plan in motion. Unlike hurricane forecasting or drought predictions, there are no external factors influencing the likelihood of that war occurring. It won't matter what actions Iran takes, or what the Congress says, or the value of the dollar.

            by Olds88 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:49:46 AM PDT

            •  For somebody used to creditcards

              the argument maybe gets lost but the credit rating of your beloved country wont be AAA to the end of the world. or maybe it will ! but the speed with wich
              your GOP is destroying the trust of your lenders is UNPRECEDENTED and so the duo infernale has almost no table left not to mention the options.

              good luck to all of us

              by gerald 1969 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:29:57 AM PDT

•  I am praying

  That we don't do this. It would be the worst possible thing we could do to ourselves and them. This is so disgusting that Cheney thinks he has a mandate still at like 15% approval rating. Our government needs a vote of no confidence ammendment to strip power from despots who could give a rip what we think.

  by woodstock007 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:44:48 AM PDT

  •  keep praying

    but I don't think Cheney thinks he has a mandate or needs one.  I think his "So?" answer covers it all.

    I didn't vote for these people, I didn't support the Iraq war, I certainly don't support extending it into Iran.  But I don't know how we get out of this, there is apparently no one left capable of telling Cheney to f'off.  Clearly the administration's ability to think through an end game, the one reason to desist from this path, is non-existant.  I am  prepared for the worst possible news even though I don't want to believe even this guys can go that far.

    by jfromga on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:54:26 AM PDT

    •  A Tax strike is the only way to stop it

      No Money, no War. But you would never get enough people to be un-afraid of the consequences to do it.

      by fetalposition on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:17:29 AM PDT

      •  Heh.

        We never used any money from the American people to pay for Iraq.

        We borrowed it from China.

        by Pluto on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:34:09 AM PDT

      •  I did it this year no more taxes from me

        I filed 6 dependents so at the end of the year I will break even. You have 3 years not to file a tax return, by then it may not matter, if we go after Iran.

        by pjbamerica on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:34:31 AM PDT

      •  Taxes?

        I haven't paid taxes in years.  The government keeps trying to give me money.  I would like to pay taxes... Maybe it would keep the dollar a little stronger.  Maybe we could afford health care for all.  Yes, I'd be happy to pay taxes if Bush and Co.  would let me!

        by doctorgirl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:57:02 PM PDT

•  I'm not an expert

  but with a layman's knowledge it would seem that Saudi Arabia is in the wrong location for this to be a much of a concern.  Wouldn't China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India have a lot more to worry about (prevailing winds and all)?

  by bythesea on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:14 AM PDT

  •  That's the point.

    This won't be confined to Iran.

    Do you really think that nuclear powers such as China and Russia will sit still while the US attempts to seize 50% of the world's remaining oil and natural gas reserves?

    That's what this is about. And madmen such as Cheney are crazy enough to think they can get away with it.

    This is very scary stuff.

    by Dr Funkenstein on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:16:19 AM PDT

  •  I Don't Think Nukes are Involved...

    ...really. They are neither strategic nor tatical. Plus, they tend to make the oil extraction process radioactive -- which defeats the purpose.

    But, you may want to print out the nuclear survival guide, anyway:

    http://www.ki4u.com/...

    by Pluto on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:44:53 AM PDT

•  In other news, Americans shot at an Egyptian ship

  in the Suez canal, killing one person.

  by NotablyZen on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:12:39 AM PDT

•  Starting a War with Iran

  may be the only way to avoid Economic collapse in the US. Grim, but true. And don't be suprised if the Iranians retaliate to provide the justification for an all out war. Remember Reagan's "October Surprise"? How about Iran-Contra?

  by fetalposition on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:13:47 AM PDT

  •  You are Right

    Speaking as a money trader -- the US must stop the sale of oil in Euros. Period. It's been two months now that we've had to pay Iran in Euros instead of Dollars.

    Saddam only forced us to pay in Euros for three months (in 2003) before we invaded.

    (I don't condone it. I'm just sayin' if your stayin' -- you want to be able to afford live.)

    by Pluto on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:38:54 AM PDT

    •  Even war with Iran won't stop the $ slide.

      The Euro will be the new world currency, it is far too late to stop the slide.
      That horse has left the barn, in fact it probably was long gone before Saddam was caught.

      by manwithnoname on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:52:47 AM PDT

•  So?

  Cheney's making money.

  by geodemographics on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:25:41 AM PDT

•  The article talks about preparing for

  a radioactive release following an attack on Bushehr, the nuke plant on the Persian Gulf that the Russians are helping to complete.

  This is not a very likely main target. It's a nuclear reactor, not a weapons lab. The contract calls for Russia to remove spent fuel and reprocess it in Russia. Blowing up Russia's shit is a rather large complicating factor.

  Isfahan, with it centrifuge facility, is a much more likely target. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a strike on Bushehr as part of some massive air attack, though.

  The article appeared on Mar 22-- Cheney was still in the country having dinner with the king on that day. If the article was based on information from Cheney, what are the chances this would come out in the press while he was still talking?

  by Olds88 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:44 AM PDT

•  yikes

  

  by bythesea on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:38:14 AM PDT

•  It's time for Congress to "undeclare" the war...

  ...against Iran before the Bush cabal can use their contorted interpretations of previous 9/11 and Iraq resolutions to justify further warmongering.  Call and email your Congressional represenatives and senators to shake off their fear, get some political balls, do what is right, and reclaim their Constitutional authority as the sole body charged with the duty to declare or NOT declare war against another nation.

  "Be it resolved, notwithstanding the terms of any previous resolutions, that no military, civilian, or ocntracted personnel or craft are authorized to enter into, or remain within, the territory or airspace of Iran for the purpose of war, attack, injury, destruction, or sabotage against any installation, infrastructure, vehicle, institution, base, people, or person within that country, without the specific and explicit authorization of Congress in response to a documented and verified attack by Iran on United States territory or personnel."

  by manleyj on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:38:27 AM PDT

•  My guess is here is how it went down

  Cheney reminded the Saudis that despite American ambivalence about opening up a third war in Iran, that no such ambivalence would exist about opening up a third front in Saudi Arabia...the home country of most of the 9/11 hijackers.

  Then he said - Oh, and that $36 billion in arms you just bought? Be a pity if all those planes, tanks and other gadgets came with no spare parts or motherboards. Or ammunition.

  The Saudis say - be a pity if we starting pricing oil in Euros...right after we pulled everything we own in dollar assets.

  Cheney - did I mention the third war in Saudi Arabia? What oil? Our oil?

  Saudis - Did we mention you'd have to fight the entirety of Islam at once if you attacked us?

  Cheney - laugh. You have no friends anywhere. You are the Saudis. Everyone hates your guts because you are our pet kingdom in the middle east. Heel, dog!
  Or better still - sic your cur ass on Iran yourself before we lay the smack down.

  Saudis - One of these days you will go too far.

  Cheney - Yeah...keep telling yourself that. In the meantime go fetch my shoes.

  by cskendrick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:50:59 AM PDT

•  In the Persian Gulf people

  have been expecting a strike on Iran to take place in April; It has been thee common wisdom for months. whether it shall come true or not is anybody's guess at this point.

  by notquitedelilah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:50 AM PDT

•  Don't buy it

  I have kind of been ignoring this rumor since it didn't really make sense to me. But one of my readers has been asking me, so I looked into it. More than ever I don't buy it and have my reasons over at Culture Kitchen (with wind pattern analysis).

  I have no doubt that Bush and McCain want to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, but nukes are HIGHLY unlikely, and even if it was likely, Saudi Arabia is not really who we would be warning.

  by mole333 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:30:24 AM PDT