home

Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in Iran

Seymour Hersh' new article in the New Yorker, The Iran Plans, is a must-read. It makes the case that Bush wants regime change in Iran and is making plans for a major air strike against the country.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush.... believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?' "

Hersh has a lot of inside sources corroborating the assertions in his article. Here's another:

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. "This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," he said.

[hat tip Patriot Daily.]

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< Libby's Lawyer Reacts to Fitz Filing | The Danger of No Knock Warrants >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    I thought saving IRAQ was going to be his legacy. This is beyond disturbing. I hope this is all a bunch of nonsense, but Hersch is much too reliable. That the administration could still believe their violent and utterly debunked delusions about "Shock and Awe" is evidence of collective mental illness. (Either that or it's a very pathetic imitation of Dicky Nixon's idea to get the rumor out that he was crazy and going to nuke Vietnam, hoping to scare the enemy into giving up.) Just like Iraq, after f*cking Iran up already by supporting a past dictator, the notion we're going to re-f*ck our first f*ckjob and get a better result is so off the charts insane, it's just as extremist and apocryphal as the fundamentalist terrorists we're supposed to be opposing. If not more, because we're the products of freedom and should know better. Madness. Pure, unadulerated madness.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#2)
    by Patrick on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    Hope it works.

    Mission accomplished did he proclaim, A superpower lived up to its name. The right wing's still backing, This man that's so lacking. The carnage, oh what a shame. Georgie Porgy pudding and pie, Sent the bombers up in the sky. Don't be talking about no Iraq, This one will be mighty craic. The king in the Whitehouse would not lie. Down the Straits of Hormuz, Oil tankers they do cruise. Should one get a rocket and sink, Then problems me do think. Dub, are you still on the booze?

    This will happen before the November '06 elections, probably by the end of September. If these maniacs think only they have the "courage" to do it, and they can't leave it for the next president, they also can't risk having a Democratic House or Senate around to question their unitary authority or reject their use-of-force request. Besides, starting a war will help them keep their congressional majority, if the stupidity of the american voting public continues as it has for the past 6 years. We've proven we'll rally around any war, no matter what ugly truths surround our motives. So long mom, I'm off to drop the bomb...

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#5)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    Just in the past few days, George Bush said, "I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as disappointed as every else is."

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    This was part of the big picture, PNAC jack-off from day one. Theres been talk here recently about "a bullet"; I wish there were a magic Specter Special for all the signatories - in lieu of a road-to-Damascus experience, which generally only happens to aspiring humans.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#7)
    by Al on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    This is Iraq all over again, but with a far worse initial position for the United States. The military are very much against using nuclear weapons, so instead the shots will be called by an ad-hoc group tied to Rumsfeld. The objective is once again to overthrow a government, with no clue on how to replace it or what happens afterwards. The administration gets impatient with the international inspectors, the IAEA this time, who are saying that Iran is very far from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. So the nuclear threat by Iran is presented instead as immediate and an attack appears to be imminent. Diplomacy is once again rejected. All the administration's money is on a bombing campaign. This time it may not be so easy to rout the enemy, though. If the US army cannot deal with the Iraqi insurgency, it is hard to see how they expect to deal with the Iranian insurgency, including Hezbollah. The UN Security Council will surely not give its blessing to this, the coalition of the willing has long since dissolved, and even Blair and Straw think this is a Very Bad Idea. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that a necessary condition to have a hope of controlling Iran would be to be able to control Iraq first. This is so insane they will probably do it.

    Do you pay any attention at all to what the leadership in Iran says? Either the mullahs or the president? We have been engaged in multi-lateral diplomacy over Iran for years now. Supposedly, that's a good thing. What exactly do you object to?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#9)
    by DonS on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    James, do you pay any attention to how off base this administration has been in estimating risk, developing policy and executing plans?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    He dosnt care. He's taken some kind of perverse leap-of-faith and theres no coming back. Nothing gets these guys off like the (vicarious) pleasure of war.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zeno on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    I had been guessing that Bush would find a way to slip away at the end of his term with a presidential pardon in his pocket, but would even Republican want him in office till 2009 if he pulls an insane stunt like this?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    Another great pic.... Kudos to CL. The Iranian gov and the neocon dominated WH share many of the same traits. The most obvious ones are that they are both dominated by apocalyptic nut jobs and that they both believe that their political standing (and personal wealth. US) will be enhanced by fighting this war. When two side believe that that there is no downside to conflict there is little chance to stop the escalation.
    "there's nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It's a dead end."
    sound familiar?
    ....."The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically," the European intelligence official told me. "He will benefit politically from American bombing......
    Sounds like America.
    ....ElBaradei's overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders "want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side"--in Washington.....
    Regarding Bush:
    ...."The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."
    Twins separated at birth?
    ....They're apocalyptic Shiites. If you're sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they've got nukes and missiles--you've got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there's no reason to back off....."
    We have to stop this madness. How, is a very tough question.

    Who is CL and how do I get "wallpaper" of this latest graphic?

    Looks like the terrorist's will be moving to Iran ASAP.

    Good analysis, Al. But, I'm afraid I'm much more convinced by Patrick's deep thoughts:
    Hope it works.
    Who, I ask you, can argue with that?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    At the deepest level most of this is pure hubris and narcissism. These PNACers are the elite of the elite; fawning sycophant enabled megalomaniacs who'eve had all the money and the power and it still hasnt filled the void. Now the shroud is beckoning and they want to go down in history.

    Posted by Patrick April 8, 2006 12:23 PM
    Hope it works.
    Sure, ya do. Why quit when you're losin'. You're just havin' a bad run of reality.

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

    Bush really scares me. He always has. I've long thought that his mental stability was at best questionable, but his facial expressions in recent months indicate to me that he's gotten worse. His eyes are most telling. I see terror and panic reflected in them. Having been a failure and a laughingstock all of his life he saw his presidency as his redemption. He'd show his daddy, his inner demons, and the entire world how wrong they'd been about him. He'd show them all that he was really an amazingly successful man and greatly admired world leader. But now he's realizing that it's all slipping away from him and that he's being exposed for the abject failure that he is. This will be the ultimate humiliation for him and his reaction to it is likely to be very violent. We need to be prepared for the very worst eventuality.

    Take a look also this excellent article by James Fallows on the same topic.

    Posted by mar April 8, 2006 04:13 PM "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government."
    Yeah, right.
    Face it, Randy Newman summed up all repo "philosophy" years ago in these few simple words. Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    montereyham, thanks for the link. interesting indeed.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#23)
    by Linkmeister on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    I can think of no better way to rouse the population of Iran (75 million or so, I believe) than to bomb them. Has it never occurred to these idiots in the Administration that they don't have a monopoly on nationalism or on capitalizing on a huge disaster like 9/11?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    linkmeister, to answer your question: no, i don't think much occurs to these people except that which reinforces their already painfully deluded and debunked "ideas" (if you can call them that).

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:20:15 PM EST
    Halliburton's profits down, Boeings stock drop, or something?...I hadn't heard.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    et al - Given that we have involved the Europeans and the UN, I assume that you won't use that excuse again. No, you will just condemn preemptive action against a rogue state that denies the existence of Israel and threatening the world.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:47:54 PM EST
    Grab a gun jim. And, maybe pony back some of that tax cut money. This isnt a spectator sport held for your pleasure.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    All it takes is one bullet. I'll second that.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:30:07 PM EST
    "Halliburtons profits drop, Boeings stock drop?" No the chickensh*t hawk from Crawfords stock is down.

    Bush did such a great job with preemptive action against Iraq. Let's do it with Iran. Sounds like a great idea. Remember folks, Bush will just have to "think" that nuking Iran would be legal to make it so. He is the all powerful Oz.

    J Pierpont, CL is TalkLeft's "man in Hollywood" -- obviously a professional but I'm not at liberty to say more. He's going to be coming up with a new crop of graphics soon, I'm glad you like them.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:46:28 PM EST
    Iran has prepared a high-level delegation to hold wide-ranging talks with the US, but the Bush administration is resisting the agenda suggested by Tehran despite pressure from European allies to engage the Islamic republic, Iranian politicians have told the Financial Times. A senior Iranian official, Mohammad Nahavandian, has flown to Washington to "lobby" over the issue, aaccording to a top Iranian adviser outside the US. However, the Iranian mission to the United Nations insisted he was in Washington on private business. Iran's willingness to engage the US on Iraq, regional security and the nuclear issue, is believed to have the approval of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It represents the most serious attempt by the Islamic republic to reach out to the US since the 1979 Islamic revolution. But the White House insisted on Thursday that its own offer of talks with Iran, extended several months ago by Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Baghdad, was limited to the subject of Iraq. "There are none and none are scheduled," Stephen Hadley, national security adviser, was quoted by a spokesman as saying about the prospect of talks with the Iranian delegation in Baghdad next week.
    link Much like Bush wanting war with Iraq reqardless of the evidence, he know wants one with Iran and is using the same scare tactics, and the corporate press has bought into the same crap and so it goes. The period of never ending war has started. My own theory is that they dont care about the outcome, since any bad outcome can be used to call for more force. When the supply of oil decreases and the costs go through the roof then Europe, China and even Russia will go along for the ride to occupy the ME as long as their piece of the oil pie is great enough. In the end, the west will be willing to occupy the entire ME and kill every last Arab and Muslim to secure the corporate interests. This is what our children have to look forward to, unending war. After the oil runs out in the ME its off to Venezula and then where ever.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    I dont see any way that there could be "war" with Iran without a draft. Do you soc?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:56:27 PM EST
    PPJ gives us the clif notes:
    you will just condemn preemptive action against a rogue state that denies the existence of Israel and threatening the world.
    Thanks for the easy to understand translation from the echo chamber.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    Anything that pisses off the left is good enough for alot of these(generally non-combatant) maroons. Thier tribal narcissism is still hurt from Vietnam and the sixties and all the blood in the world will only assuage it temporarily.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    This is what our children have to look forward to, unending war. After the oil runs out in the ME its off to Venezula and then where ever.
    Yes, twenty years of oil-wars and then a showdown with China.

    Thanks for the easy to understand translation from the echo chamber.
    He forgot to add that we're unhinged objectively pro-terrorist ChimpyMcHitlerBurtons who haven't figured out how to do anything but wave a peace sign since we made America lose Vietnam.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:28:10 AM EST
    Payvand's Iran News ... 1/23/06 What is the response of Iran to the U.S. or Israelis threat? By Hussein Sharifi
    "We have our sensors in place in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and most Arab countries. We know ahead of the time when they are coming, and since Mr. Bush has given American democracy along with the preemptive strike as the right of everybody in the world, we are going to use it and use it effectively.

    We are present in most of the military briefings of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. As soon as we see that it is imminent we hit them and hit them hard... Whether the U.S. or Israel attacks us, we will consider it as Israeli attack since we know how much power they have over the U.S. political and decision-making system."

    If the attack happens, that will trigger the nuclear efforts of Iran. We will definitely go underground and speed up nuclear weapon production, since there will be no choice except to have them and have them soon. Right now we do not need nuclear weapons which are a liability rather than an asset, because we do not have hostile enemy which we cannot smash when we want to.

    The country has been able to stand on its feet for the last 2,500 years and will do so in the future. Look at the last war we had with Iraq, which by the way, was shortest war we had during the last 200 years."

    Hussein Sharifi is a retired military officer who served in Iranian Imperial Army and Islamic republic army and now resides in the United States.

    You know desperately sick people (usually guys) need to kill their estranged girl, because if he can't have her, no one will? I honestly believe that these guys do not want anyone left living when they are gone. I honestly do think this is the level of maturity and understanding at work here.

    The first wave of invaders should include Bush's daughters and Hineraker's son, and all the rest of the children of the right wing cowards.

    Yeah, I'm sure you can count on the twins to be disarmin' IEDs for Daddy. What else would they be doin', Partyin' with the children of the idle rich and goin' to fashion shows!? These are young women of substance. Just don't get me started on what substance. Which brings me to Laura. Why does she continue to get a free pass? For the wonderful job she did with the twins? It's not like she was workin' two minimum wage, no-benefit jobs while she was raising these latch key kids of theirs while Georgie was gettin' in touch with his inner Jim Beam.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:44:53 AM EST
    The first wave of invaders should include Bush's daughters and Hineraker's son, and the wingey keyboard kommandos from the 101st Armchair Division can lead the second wave. We'll even get 'em some khaki depends they can wear under their camouflage so they don't mess themselves while they're cowering in terror.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:03:46 AM EST
    wg: Bush may find the itch to erase their failures in Iraq with a spectacular new strike irresistible. Think about a temptation for Bush, from a total joke to the bold leader of almost galactic proportions in one easy swoop That scenario might be closer to reality that you might think, wg. John Steinberg at RawStory seems to agree with you in his April 2 commentary "Armageddon":
    the invasion and occupation of Iraq was and remains a success in Bush's view. Halliburton and oil company profits are up. Bush was re-elected. His endless war has made all of this possible. The only fly in the ointment is the war's domestic unpopularity. ... there is a huge difference between Iran and Iraq from a military standpoint. ... Iran has Russian anti-ship missiles that are to the Exocet (the weapon that nearly defeated the British in the Falklands) what an F-22 is to a WWII-era Spitfire, and that there are no effective countermeasures. Our Fifth Fleet, which patrols the Persian Gulf, is completely vulnerable. ... the powers that be must know far better than I do that an attack on Iran would result in devastating losses to the Fifth Fleet. ... What would happen if, for whatever reason, Iran sank a couple of American warships? ... The cowed millions would demand action, and action they would get. Bush would round up his nuclear posse and unleash an unprecedented retaliation. Iran would glow for millennia with the radiation of a thousand nuclear warheads in the first all-out nuclear strike in history. Millions of Iranians, or perhaps tens of millions, would die. And Red State America would cheer. Bush's poll numbers would regain their former heights, and talk of censure and Valerie Plame and Katrina would dissolve into the radioactive haze that would blanket the planet.
    Wasn't there some discussion the other day in another thread about the unconsummated fantasies of bush and his supporters?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:13:52 AM EST
    Edger - Beyond the fact that whether or not we have effective countermeasures is not known by Steinberg, he and you demonstrate why the Left should never be in charge of anything military. From his article:
    and that there are no effective countermeasures. Our Fifth Fleet, which patrols the Persian Gulf, is completely vulnerable.
    Assuming that this magic missile does not have unlimited range, and it does not, the strategy is simple. Stand out of range and use your offensive air power to destroy the delivery systems before you come in. Iran's military may prove a more diffucult task than Iraq, but to think and claim that we will play to their strengths merely demonstrates your desire to paint a picture of doom. BTW - And what branch of the service did you serve in? wg - Your comment about Vietnam is somewhat incomplete. First you must have the political will to use all of the weapons at your disposal. We did not do that in Vietnam. We folded to the demonstrations and actions of the Left. An act that we are still paying for this morNing aT 9:12. As for the cost of war in Iraq, no one ever said it would be zero in terms of soldiers. But it has been very close to that. Squeaky - Are you claiming that the Left isn't condemning a preemotve strike and that Iran hasn't denied Israel's right to exist? Huh? SD - Glad to see you back. Of course you do know, don't you, that we have been engaged in bilateral talks with these thugs for a couple of years with no progress. Ever think that they might be lying? I mean, remember their bragging about doing exactly that? Jondee - And what branch of the military did you serve? As for taxes, did you pay any FIT last year? No? So why are you complaining?

    Yeah, nothin' takes your mind off those sagging poll numbers like a nuclear holocaust. Good call, uncle dick!

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:30:05 AM EST
    Iran's perception of the threat:
    Two themes emerge from a review of statements by top regime leaders over the past ten years of the threats facing the Islamic Republic: they fear, or claim they fear, an attack by the United States, or an attack by Israel; or some conspiratorial combination of the two. I believe their actions show that they have actively rebuilt their defense forces over the past ten years to counter these two threats, while almost totally neglecting the potential threat of a resurgent Iraq. For instance, Iran has devoted almost no resource to rebuilding its decimated armored divisions, which would face Iraq, whereas it has spent tremendous amounts of money and energy building up naval forces, missile units, and amphibious attack forces based at the entry to the Persian Gulf. ... Iran began development [and has successfully test-fired] of the Shahab-3, a 1500 kilometer-range missile capable carrying a 1-ton nuclear warhead against Israel. They received extensive technical assistance from North Korea, China, and increasingly from Russia, which became Iran's main technology partner. ... the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Maj. Gen. Mohsen Rezai, warned the United States not to make any aggressive moves toward Iran. "The world's energy is in the Persian Gulf," he told Basijis gathered for war games in August 1996. "If the Americans commit the slightest mistake there, Basij forces will set this region on fire and this will result in America's certain death."


    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#50)
    by soccerdad on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:12:13 AM EST
    We have been engaged in bilateral talks for years and as soon as an agreement might be anywhere is sight, the US moves the goal posts. Read all the articles by Gordon Prather who has the technical knowledge to understand the agreements. Iran is no military threat, even if they had one nuke given that Israel has 100's. Meanwhile Pakistan spread nuke techology over the globe buy they are our buddies of convience. Eventually we will have to attack them is we cant get India to do it for us. This is the future. I'm glad I'm old No, what has become clear is that the US is willing to add gas to the fire in the ME for the purpose of its ultimate destruction and occupation by Modil, BP etc.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:17:00 AM EST
    Edger - Timmerman's article reminds me of priests during the Middle Ages arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It makes no difference. Iran has armed. And they have shown a clear and unmistakable hositility towards the west, and towards Israel and the US in particular. That has been recognized, belatedly, even by France, Germany and Italy. As for the blustering in the artcles you always refer to, I seem to remember that Saddam also expected the world to cringe when he proclaimed the "Mother of all battles." He is now in the dock, waiting certain execution. et al - Anyone have any strategies to mention? I mean besides letting Iran develop nukes?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:20:24 AM EST
    SD writes:
    Read all the articles by Gordon Prather who has the technical knowledge to understand the agreements.
    And what does Prather have to say about Iran's bragging they lied? Sterile arguments by so-called experts crumble into dust when touched with reality.

    And who's gonna give you and shrub the crash course in reality, Jim?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:09:39 AM EST
    PPJ does not care about reality, never did never will much like the thugs in the white house.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:14:17 AM EST
    charlie - When it comes to military affairs, certainly not you or SD. But wait! If I remember right you actually sat in a jet fighter one time. Wow!

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    Bush administration has no strategy to deal with Iran: By Bernard Gwertzman, New York Times writer.
    Flynt L. Leverett, who served in senior posts at the National Security Agency, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, says that the United States has gotten itself into a diplomatic dilemma with Iran "because we essentially don't have a strategy" for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. Asserting that the Bush administration rejected an invitation made by Iran in 2003 to open a strategic dialogue, Leverett says that Bush "is, on this issue, very, very resistant to the idea of doing a deal, even a deal that would solve the nuclear problem." Leverett, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, says President Bush considers the Iranian regime "fundamentally illegitimate." As a result, he says, the administration is stuck with two choices -- dealing within the UN Security Council, where Russia and China are effectively blocking serious punitive measures, and unilateral military action, which Washington is not in a position to undertake. The international outcry would, I think, be enormous. We would literally have no one on our side at this point supporting that kind of action.
    Well, almost no one. Millions of Iranians, or perhaps tens of millions, would die. And Red State America would cheer.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    1,2,3...What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn Next stop is old Tehran 5,6,7 Open up the pearly gates I ain't got no time to wonder why the man's makin' money and the poor are gonna die.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    We're all in the same boat. One country, a minority of the people in the boat, because of bush's adolescent need to: show his daddy, his inner demons, and the entire world how wrong they'd been about him... [and] show them all that he was really an amazingly successful man and greatly admired world leader ...has isolated itself diplomatically from the world community, armed itself to the teeth with the world's most detructive weapons, WMD's, and is determined to bully and terrorize the rest of the rest world into doing it's bidding, and is going to sink the boat.
    We need to be prepared for the very worst eventuality.


    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    ppj - Where did you see action again? Pushing a stream of twenty year olds between yourself and the line-of-fire dosnt count and neither does yelling sic em when Ann C's adams apple starts quivering.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:26:02 AM EST
    Chickenhawkus Americanus

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    You can't negotiate with these people, you can't try to talk sense to these people. The only way to deal with them is to find them and bring them to justice --George W. Bush

    Pushing a stream of twenty year olds between yourself and the line-of-fire dosnt count

    You can't talk sense with baby killers either.



    Jim, I'd like to offer you a job as a cook. You can even wear the same apron you wore when you were in the service.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    A person who apparently sees little difference between Iraqs military capabilities and Irans has no business in this discussion.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#64)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    Iran has armed. And they have shown a clear and unmistakable hositility towards the west, ...ever since the ole axis-of-evil speech. Iran, like Iraq and North Korea, was completely contained prior to the Bush adminstration.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:32:24 AM EST
    Bush is Messianic
    The Passion of the Bush
    Bush is not merely a sincere man of faith but God's essential and irreplaceable warrior on Earth. The stations of his cross are burnished into cinematic fable: the misspent youth, the hard drinking (a thirst that came from "a throat full of Texas dust"), the fateful 40th-birthday hangover in Colorado Springs, the walk on the beach with Billy Graham. A towheaded child actor bathed in the golden light of an off-camera halo re-enacts the young George comforting his mom after the death of his sister; it's a parable anticipating the future president's miraculous ability to comfort us all after 9/11. An older Bush impersonator is seen rebuffing a sexual come-on from a fellow Bush-Quayle campaign worker hovering by a Xerox machine in 1988; it's an effort to imbue our born-again savior with retroactive chastity. As for the actual president, he is shown with a flag for a backdrop in a split-screen tableau with Jesus. The message isn't subtle: they were separated at birth. A Newsweek poll shows that 17 percent of Americans expect the world to end in their lifetime. To Karl Rove and company, that 17 percent is otherwise known as "the base."


    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:31:40 PM EST
    Bigunit12 - Gee guy, I appreciate the offer, but you see, us folks in Naval Aviation, in which I spent 10 years, were trained in other things. Not that cooks are not important, they are. Those flight rations always hit the spot. So please don't be embarassed by the fact you will never make it as either a cook, or as anything in Naval Aviation. There is a place for everyone in this big world, and I am sure that as soon as you get out of Middle School someone will give you a summer job. Let me hear you say, "Want to biggie size that?" edger - You are exceeding yourself in the use of psycho babble today. Jondee - Wherever and whatever 1s more than you. But hey. I know you tried and they wouldn't take you. And that rejection burns in your heart to this very minute, eh? Attend a few Requiems Jondee. Console a dead man's family. Toast a good man's short life. Then come talk to me. Until then, you bring nothing to the table. And you have never supported the troops. Never.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    ppj - Ive been to plenty. The difference is, I actually mourn; you apparently cant get enough. Btw, Support this. And this.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    Jondee - No, you haven't. Those who have don't say the things you do.

    Who are you to make that determination, Jim?

    Posted by Jondee April 9, 2006 11:12 AM
    ppj - Where did you see action again?


    Posted by charliedontsurf1 April 9, 2006 05:38 PM Posted by Jondee April 9, 2006 11:12 AM ppj - Where did you see action again? Yeah, Jim? I tell you I wasn't in the Service and ya still ask me the same damn question periodically? Christ, ya got more questions about my whereabouts than shrubs. Hey, I'm not the one who was supposed to show up. It's Soprano night, anyone remember when an Asian Chistopher Moltisanti took the stock brokers exam in Season 3. Shrub couldn't even work up that much enthusiasm for God and Country. He was all for the War. As long as someone else was doing the fighting. Just like now. So, you always ask, you never tell, Jim. Just this vague Naval Aviation stuff. That could make you a pastry chef. Details, Jim. Details?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    ppj, so now Im a liar. Howard Zinn was a bombadier in WWII and he goes further than I do. So, when you finish up with the chickenhawks in the administration, you can KMA.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#73)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    And you have never supported the troops. Never.
    Constantly insulting other people's service and patriotism is the hallmark of a coward who only cares about getting more Americans killed in the fastest way possible. How disgusting.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#74)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:17:52 PM EST
    I agree, KMA too.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    And quoting bumperstickers dont give you many points for originality either.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:36:54 PM EST
    Jondee - What does Howard Zinn have to do with the attacks and claims that you make? Must you always hide behind those who served? And why do you continue to ask? All I have ever said is I spent slightly more than 10 years in Naval Aviation, and that is all I will say. For that, dear Jondee, for that alone...with nothing else added... far exceeds any duty.. any sacrifice you have made for this country. And I still don't believe you. charlie - I would no more tell you details of my life that I would try and swim the Atlantic. First you would just make insulting comments, and secondly you would be incapable of understanding. So keep your mouth engaged on subjects you know nothing about, and continue to provide us with a chuckle or two when you say things like "my buddy let me set in a fighter jet.." Again, a big Wow. BTW - You love sports stories... I am again reminded, when I read your attempts to play in this league, of one of Stengel's comments.
    "Son, we'd like to keep you around this season but we're going to try and win a pennant."
    Sailor - Perhaps it is the false claim of patriotism that is the last refugee of a scoundrel...

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:45:10 PM EST
    ppj - And you can still KMA. You can only milk that Iron Cross so much.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#78)
    by soccerdad on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:53:33 PM EST
    Patriotism in its simplest, clearest and most indubitable signification is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason, conscience, and a slavish enthralment to those in power. Leo Toystoy

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:00:15 PM EST
    Tolstoy had nothin on Jim.

    As part of the force that attacks Iran, they should have the fat butt brigade. It would be made up of Hannity, O'reilly, Limbaugh, and Michael Reagan. They would be dressed up in calvary uniforms and ride horses. I could see them storming a village of women and children, and then out of the corner of his eagle eyes Hannity sees the men returning. He then shouts out the right wing war mantra "run away, run away". Then you see in the dimming light,four fat butts bouncing away on their horses.

    So much for the spatula saga. Shucks, I was really lookin' forward to hearin' that yarn, Jim. I'm sure the gang was, too. Ditto for the rollin' pin poems. On second thought Jim, thanks for sparin' us. Sounds like there's nothin' to tell, Jim. Big surprise. There's not gonna be much of a pot when 75 people all have the same damned number in the pool. Jim, it's just become readily apparent. You're outta your league at humor, you're outta your league at sports, you're outta your league at History, you're outta your league Politics, you're just outta you're league. We was gonna give ya a piece Jim but we was afraid ya'd drop it.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#82)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:13:49 PM EST
    ppj, is a proven liar, and never has anything but cowardly personal attacks and misdirection in vain attempts to counteract facts. KMAx2

    Posted by Jondee April 9, 2006 07:00 PM
    Tolstoy had nothin on Jim.
    Nothin' besides talent, imagination and the ability to think and speak Russian fluently, that is.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    but nothing he or anyone else has done exceeds the duty and sacrifice Jim (may he rest in peace) has performed for his country. Except maybe Ollie North.

    Here's another example of PPJ's philosophy.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 12:18:43 AM EST
    Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, told US television he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans, but he suggested a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would be extremely risky. "Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said Zinni. "The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism," he said.


    Jim:
    Stand out of range and use your offensive air power to destroy the delivery systems before you come in.
    Yea, we know exactly where they are just like we knew exactly where Saddam's WMDs were. Jim:
    First you must have the political will to use all of the weapons at your disposal. We did not do that in Vietnam.
    What weapons did we not use - except nuclear? Jim:
    As for the cost of war in Iraq, no one ever said it would be zero in terms of soldiers. But it has been very close to that.
    Over 2,300 is not close to zero!!!!!! Why do you hate the troops?

    Jim's been dazzling us with his mastery of realpolitik and geopolitical intricacies so far. Coupled with his peerless gift for and grasp of Military Strategy. Folks now quote Jim the way they used to quote Clausewitz. He may yet move into that echelon of Military Strategists and Geopolitical Thinkers reserved for the likes of Kramer and Newman playing Risk at Jerry's Table and on the Subway.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 07:10:56 AM EST
    It's interesting that the Official Homepage of the Commander, Fifth Fleet (COMFIFTHFLEET) times out this morning when I try to open it. A US Military Server times out? Someone does not want movements of the fleet known, perhaps?

    You're on to somethin' with ollie and Jim, Jondee. Ah, there's a comedy team for the new millennium. Somehow, if Jim were to "serve" this Country or "defend" its Constitution, the verb "SHREDDING" comes to mind. Ya know, since shrub's in such a mood to declassify everything in sight these days, maybe he'll oblige us with Jim's file. Ten bucks says it was culinary in nature. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

    If only we'd dropped Jim, shrub, dick, rummy, wolfie, rovesputin, rush, horsebrit, bor, inshannity and the rest of the revisionist neocon nitwits on Vietnam. Saddled 'em up like Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove on conventional weapons. It wouldn't have changed the outcome but I'd certainly feel better about things knowin' their little neocon nitwit spirits had been set free.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 07:39:03 AM EST
    It wouldn't have changed the outcome but wouldn't have been very good for the environment of Vietnam. Greenpeace would have screamed...

    Posted by JimakaPPJ April 10, 2006 10:00 AM
    charlie - The one true fact is that you, Jondee or Dark Avenger have no experience in the military, so you must always depend on someone else.
    I keep tellin' ya, Jim. I had "other priorities" in those days. There was a lot of that goin' around back then. Ask darth dickie, shrub, aka the "Asian" Christopher Moltisanti, Wolfie, Feithie, all those dudes. We were either more the cerebral type or more inclined to get in touch with our inner Jack Daniels than spill blood. That's for people who are for the War. Or at least for members of the lower classes. Just like today. Just like it's always been. Get with the program. I'll just defer to the vast military experience of the darths, wolfies and shrubs of the world. I'm sure they won't steer us wrong.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 05:57:52 PM EST
    This post: April 10, 2006 10:00 AM, was just about the worst thread hijack I ever saw. It does not look accidental.

    Yeah, that's about as accidental as Auschwitz, Edge. Methinks our Jim's got his persecution complex goin' strong. That's a shame.

    Yeah, that's about as accidental as Auschwitz, Edge. Methinks our Jim's got his persecution complex goin' strong. That's a shame.

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    Jondee - Ah, such intelligent retorts. Do you have a comment that rises above middle school level? charlie - The one true fact is that you, Jondee or Dark Avenger have no experience in the military, so you must always depend on someone else. Now. Try to understand this. It won't be a "conventional" ground war. BTW - If you had been reading the blog for a while, and if you knew anything about Naval Aviation you would know some of the aircraft and some of the bases just based on other comments. But you haven't and if you did your lack of knowledge prevents you. debbie - Hmmm, quickly now. Missiles require ships, shore to ship or aircraft launch platforms. Anything within range will be destroyed. Simpler. You can't hide and attack at the same time. HE bombs on downtown Hanoi and the Hanoi utility system come to mind immediately. As I have written before, the actions of the Left, their attempts to create political turmoil, encourages the terrorists now as it did in Vietnam. This causes the terrorists to continue to fight and this kills more US troops. Now. Who doesn't care about the troops? Got a mirror? Next question?? [remainder deleted due to length]

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:51:35 PM EST
    Someone care to link to the thread where Jim called for "seventeen ropes for seventeen necks" at the first indication of an organized act of insubordination by "the troops" that he "supports"?

    Re: Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:58:08 PM EST
    Oct 15, 2004