home

Bush's Iraq Speech: Open Thread

Here are some excerpts from Bush's speech tonight.

[Update: Text of speech is here.]

Several Republicans are balking at the plan:

A number of Republican senators -- including Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Sen. Olympia Snow of Maine and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas -- have publicly questioned whether Bush's plan to increase troop strength will help stabilize Iraq.

"A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem," Coleman said Wednesday on the Senate floor.

"It would put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence and create more targets. I just don't believe this makes sense," Coleman said.

Democrats are upset, among other things, at Bush's lack of consultation with them over the plan. By the time he met with them, the plan was a fait accompli.

"There's a difference between consultation and notification," Pelosi said. "This was notification, not consultation."

"The president's practicing his speech right now," Reid said. "We had a conversation today that has no impact on what he's going to say."

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued this press release earlier today(received by e-mail, no link).

"I strongly oppose any plan to increase American troop levels in Iraq. Sending more American troops will not make us safer. It will only add to the sectarian violence that is already tearing Iraq apart. I am also very concerned with this plan's impact on our overburdened National Guard forces, which already compose half of our forces in Iraq.

The only surge we need in Iraq is a diplomatic one. We need to withdraw American troops from Iraq this year, redeploy our men and women to Afghanistan and other international terrorism hotspots, and reinvigorate our diplomacy throughout the Middle East. We need a political solution to the Iraq crisis, not a military one."

< ABC News: Troop Escalation Already Underway | Bloggers Get Press Credentials for Scooter Libby Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    As Bush makes his speech tonight (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:35:26 PM EST
    US Troops, almost 4 years after the invasion, are still fighting today to secure Haifa Street a few steps from the Green Zone.

    Secure Baghdad? Who the hell is he fooling, other than himself and a few fawning in denial worshippers? No one. Absolutely no one. As Patrick Coburn explained in stark terms in the Independent Online on 11/05/06 Bush will be be lucky to have US control of anything beyond a few hundred yards outside the Green Zone:

    The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and Blair no longer touches reality at any point.
    ...
    In the first year of the occupation it could be argued that Bush and Blair were simply incompetent: they did not understand Iraq, were misinformed by Iraqi exiles, or were simply ignorant and arrogant. But they must know that for two-and-a-half years they have controlled only islands of territory in Iraq. "The Americans haven't even been able to take over Haifa Street [a Sunni insurgent stronghold] though it's only 400 yards from the Green Zone," a senior Iraqi security official exclaimed to me last week.

    Bush is speaking tonight from fantasyland... nothing has changed, or will, till he is gone.

    Iraq is a 'failed', or more accurately, a 'destroyed' state'. The country is in civil war and rapidly descending into a chaotic hell created by Bush's invasion that sadly probably nothing that can stop now, short of setting up the same kind of heavy handed brutal police state that Saddam ran.

    We don't control the 6 mile road from the airport! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:18:42 PM EST
    Mr Bush is Delusional (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by proudleftists on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:06:58 PM EST
    The Democrats must Impeach Bush and Cheney.He is chomping at the bit to go to War against Iran.

    It has been (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:36:31 AM EST
    a war with Iran for a long, long time. It's just going to turn into a shooting war on Iranian territory. And across the ME, btw. Soon... Fallons' transfer to CentCom was the last piece Bush needed to put in place.

    Parent
    Fallon.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:46:13 AM EST
    ...and 21,00 troops to die defending the embassy and Green Zone.

    Parent
    bush has already committed his first act of... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    ...open aggression and committed an act of war by invading the sovereign Embassy of Iran, kidnapping and holding the diplomats and employees hostage, and seizing their computers and files.

    As usual with bush there was no thought given to the secondary consequences of this act: Every U.S. Embassy in the world, and the diplomats and employees there are NO LONGER SAFE FROM ATTACK, and it would surely seal our fate, insofar as credibility is concerned, if we are ever again heard to complain about an attack on one of our Embassies while it is now CLEAR THAT AMERICA WILL NOT HONOR INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OR THE DIPLOMATIC STATUS OF AMBASSADORS AND EMPLOYEES OF OTHER COUNTRIES.

    This is a very serious breach of law, an act of war, and yet another unjustified act of aggression by bush to try and get Iran to attack us so he can claim we are only responding to THEIR aggression. (Remember the false flag operation he wanted by painting our planes in U.N. colors and attempting to bait Iraq into an attack?)

    Ain't gonna work this time or ever again. AMERICA HAS OPENLY DECLARED WAR ON IRAN.

    Nice job, mr boosh. And I want all the trolls and maladministration backers here to come forward and telling us how this is NOT AN ACT OF WAR.

    Parent

    I thought he would do it by (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    inventing a faked Iranian attack on a US Warship in the Gulf or Indian Ocean.

    Then again, he still might. A faked attack by Iran in response to his invasion of their consulate would be just the thing he needs.

    Parent

    Or by using "phony documents" the CIA... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    ...can easily load into their seized computers "showing" Iran is aiding/abetting terrorism in Iraq and that we "must" stop them.

    Of course bush will deny invading an Embassy of Iran, but the Iraqis call it an embassy, and a "legal" one at that, and says the diplomats were there at the behest of the Iraqis, and the Iranians certainly had been allowed to open their Embassy in Iraq after establishing diplomatic relations with Iraq.

    Remember the kidnapping of Iranians a short time back? bush was forced to let them go in accord with international standards.

    How can he possibly justify making the same mistake again?

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:24:22 PM EST
    Cheney Says Dems Can't Stop Bush's War With Iran
    If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way."


    Parent
    Iran summons Swiss, Iraqi diplomats after US raid (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:36:52 PM EST
    TEHERAN, Iran - Iran's foreign ministry on Thursday summoned the Iraqi and Swiss envoys to Teheran over the detention of five Iranian staffers at a diplomatic mission in northern Iraq, state-run television reported.

    The broadcast said the ministry had summoned the ambassadors and "demanded an explanation" about the incident. Switzerland represents American interests in Iran, where there is no US embassy.



    Parent
    International Herald Tribune (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    Iranians detained in raid on consulate in Iraq
    American forces raided the Iranian consulate in the mainly Kurdish city of Erbil in northern Iraq before dawn today, detaining at least five Iranian employees in the building and seizing some property, according to Iraqi and Iranian officials and witnesses.
    ...
    The Iranian embassy in Baghdad has sent a letter of protest to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, Hosseini told the IRNA news agency.


    Parent
    Bill... plrase be accurate. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:41:38 PM EST
    uh Bill.... It wasn't an embassy. The Iranians claim it was a consulate. We say it was neither.

    Now I know that isn't as exciting as your claims, but it is factual.

    Parent

    Diplomatic immunity by any other name... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    ...play all the semantics you want.

    Whether it was a consulate or embassy makes no difference in terms of practical implication and the unlawful seizing of diplomats and employees, JUST LIKE WE DID JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND WERE FORCED TO BACK DOWN, is just plain wrong.

    Nobody, especially me, expects you to get the fact that we have committed an act of war by seizing diplomats in violation of international law, that the Iraqis consider those taken to be diplomats with commensurate immunity from illegal actions such as these, and, lastly, OF COURSE WE WILL CLAIM WE DIDN'T ILLEGALLY KIDNAP DIPLOMATS, but according to the two countries with diplomatic relations, AMERICA DID. And, frankly, America and Americans have so say in with whom Iraq establishes such a relationship and have no choice but to recognize THEIR  LAWFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAN.

    Nice job, mr boosh and enablers.

    You are always so smug and condescending to everyone while you ignore FACTS, so for just one instant, why don't you try assuming that we did exactly what BOTH the Iraqis AND Iranians said we did and regale us all with your unassailable logic and explain to us poor plebes WHY THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

    Parent

    "We say it was neither." jimakappj (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    We said there were WMDs in Iraq.
    We said Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program.
    We said Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake for his (non-existant) nuclear weapons.
    We said Saddam could launch chemical attacks against our forces within 45 minutes of receiving the order. (although he had no such weapons)
    We said Saddam could load drones (he didn't have) with chemical weapons (that he didn't have) and attack us.
    We said we knew precisely where Saddam's (non-existant) WMDs were located.
    We said that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (falsely).
    We said Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaida (falsely).

    My god, Jim, is there EVER going to be a point at which, "We say" JUST ISN'T GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO COMPLETELY ABSOLVE "U.S." FROM THE HARM "WE" HAVE DONE AND THE HORRORS WE HAVE INFLICTED ON IRAQ?

    Is there NO POINT at which you will finally admit that bush/cheney are two of the biggest liars to have ever lived and that they are damaging America more and more everyday?

    This is really it for me, Jim, depending on how you answer these questions, which will finally reveal if you have the truth WITHIN YOU.

    Parent

    My magic 8-ball says (none / 0) (#62)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    "No."

    Parent
    Bill my man (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:50:51 PM EST
    ....so much baloney, so little time...

    Let me let the air out of a couple your more.. shall I say... uninformed rantings??

    No more of an expert than Joe Wilson has agreed that Saddam tried to purchase yellowcake. Or at least that is what he told the CIA in his debrief.

    Of course, one does wonder why Wilson didn't put what he told the CIA in his infamous NYT arrticle.  Joe wouldn't fun us would he? Leave out a very important point in his public utterings???
    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue,                  said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Then we have the matter of Saddam wanting to get back into the weapons business. From the Kay report we find that he was already in the delivery system business. Wonder why he wanted these?? Duh

    Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

    · A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

    · Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

    · Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    · Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

    And since Saddam wasn't doing anything, he tried to bribe a UN inspector.

    Mr Ekeus told Reuters news agency that he had passed the information to the Volcker Commission. "I told the Volcker people that Tariq [Aziz] said a couple of million was there if we report right. My answer was, 'That is not the way we do business in Sweden.'

    Let me see. I'm not doing anything wrong, so I'll bribe this inspector to tell them that.

    Huh???

    And what did Kay say in his final report.


    "There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.

    Terrorists and Iraq??

    Now, what did Fitzgerald say in the 911 Commission Hearings?

    FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one..... I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

    We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between al Qaeda and the Sudan. They worked hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.

    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    So let's see. We have al-Qaeda and Iraq deciding to work together. We have Saddam wanting to get back into the WMD business. We have Saddam having delivery systems in excess of that allowed, and trying to increase that range. And we have Saddam trying to purchase yellowcake.

    Bill, I know the above is complex and doesn't lend itself to chanting rants, but don't you think you should try really hard to connect the dots??

    I mean, it really isn't that hard.

    Can you say: 100,000 dead in NYC, another 75,000 in LA....

    Parent

    We = the voices in PPJ's head (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:49:53 AM EST
    Bill, welcome to Jim's Bizzaro World, where in one breath we try to justify the CIA creating, arming and financing Bin Laden's Afghan Army, and in the next one we kill 175,000 people with imaginary weapons in order to justify the 175,000 we have killed with real weapons.

    It's a fun place isn't it, despite the lack of oxygen?

    Parent

    Ernesto complains and (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:14:32 AM EST
    I assume, based on your complaints, that either you didn't want us to oppose the Soviet Union, or else you wanted US military to fight and die in that opposition.

    Which was it?

    We have revisited the world of proxy wars and "a friend of my enemy is my friend," numerous times and I find you opposing our using it in Afghanistan and in the Iraq-Iran war, yet you voice no problem when it was to be done by al-Qaeda and Iraq:

    As Fitzgerald said: (see my comment to Bill A)

    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    And if you don't find that troublesome, why not?

    The Left's continual cowering and running from reality reminds me of Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler. Hitler must have been cracking up inside as Chamberlain ran back to England waving his useless bit of paper, declaring, "Peace in our time!"

    Six million Jews and five million other minorities died, and millions more in battle and collateral, yet we now know that when Hitler first made his moves he was ready to pull back if the French even  hinted at action.

    Parle vou francais? Or is your brand of isolationism more like Chamberlain's?

    I will ask you a moral question. If you give someone something to help them, and they turn on you, is it your fault?

    And what more proof that we can not negotiate with these terrorists than what OBL said in this interview with Peter Arnett:

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    Bin Ladin:...So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    Link

    So run, Ernesto run. Bring the troops home. It stops nothing, merely emboldens and empowers OBL.

    But sooner or later you will fight, convert or bow for your beheading. All your denials, all your protests, will not stop that simple fact.

    Parent

    ::aggressive:: intervention (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:22:59 AM EST
    How many time do you intend to intentionally miss the point in the quote that you keep bringing up to try unsuccessfully to use to justify the biggest foreign policy failures and the most incompetent president ever?

    You've already bowed for your beheading, Jim.

    Parent

    The truth is just NOT within him, Ernesto. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    I won't waste anymore time arguing moral relativity with someone who doesn't see, hear, and witness daily the destruction being wrought on AMERICA by the endless lies and propaganda of the bush/cheney eternal war machine.

    Parent
    He's a liar, still, and again... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:04:48 AM EST
    If Bush didn't explicitly say it last night, he tried to infer that Maliki and the Iraqi government want more US Troops deployed. That is not the case. Iraq is getting them, as they did in the beginning of this mess, in spite of the fact that they do not want them.

    Haidar al-Abadi, Shia MP in the Dawa party and 'close associate' of Maliki, says "The government believes there is no need for extra troops from the American side," and that "The existing troops can do the job."

    NYT has the article this morning: Promising Troops Where They Aren't Really Wanted.

    They only problems Bush is trying to solve here, as always, are his own PR problems.

    Edger you missed something. (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    Edger, you seem to have missed this comment from your article.

    As a long-oppressed majority, the Shiites have a deep-seated fear that the power they won at the polls, after centuries of subjugation by the Sunni minority, will be progressively whittled away as the Americans seek deals with the Sunnis that will help bring American troops home.

    So, what you are telling us is that don't want anymore troops, but on the other hand the article says they are in fear that we will cut deals and leave.

    The real facts are that the Shia milita's don't want any more troops because there are enough to keep them safe, but not enough political will to prevent them from doing what they want. But with the troop increase, Bush was explicit in saying that no lawbreaker will be protected.

    Parent

    completely ignoring ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:16:18 AM EST
    ... the fact that the majority of iraqis want us gone.

    Parent
    Sailor and Edger (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    Nope, if I were them I wouldn't want us there. But the fact is that, as the Sunis fear, if we leave they are toast.

    I'd day that as long as no one likes us we're doing oaky.

    Parent

    oaky? doaky (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    More like (none / 0) (#70)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    drinky winky ;)

    Parent
    winky? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:41:32 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    cornered by his own incompetence (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by wg on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:24:12 AM EST
    It would be advisable to stop piling on poor George for time being, imho. He can snap any moment now and order something real stupid in the Middle East, something we all would come to regret very much. Cornered people can be unpredictable.

    History repeats... (4.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Oswald on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:27:05 AM EST
    Remember LBJ became Prez the same way that Cheney will become Prez. Bush has one more service to do for his country I reckon. And if they can line up an appropriately dusky patsy then the sympathy vote is guaranteed, the patriotism genie is well and truly out of the bottle and by jingo off we go on a new road, a road paved with good intentions. Who knows where it might lead ?  Watch this space !

    I sympathize... (4.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:38:04 AM EST
    ...but that would be about the worst possible thing that could happen. Cheney would probably nuke half the world trying to kill 15 or 20 people. He's never been overly concerned with "collateral damage". Especially brown "collateral damage"...

    Parent
    Because he'd have to (4.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:39:05 AM EST
    pretend that he didn't do it.

    Parent
    "I can hardly wait!" (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:03:54 PM EST
    Curly Howard.

    Seems appropo.

    The Sunnis started it. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:09:02 PM EST


    I'd say Bush started it, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Doctor G on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:20:38 AM EST
    but when I was a kid and we started in with that excuse we all got sent to our rooms.

    Parent
    Yes... George... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:21:40 PM EST
    It's everybody elses fault. Anybody elses...

    I turned him off. I can't listen to the rest this. He's turning my stomach.

    That's exactly... (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    what I did. The mere sight of his face is enough to enrage me. Bad for my blood pressure which is already elevated. Everybody knew what he was going to say anyway.

    Parent
    Yeah - I made it about ten minutes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    But he was hyperventilating like he knew he was going be caught in his lies, and coming aross like a crackhead coming down sideways begging for money and trying to make you feel sorry for him...

    Parent
    I believe... (none / 0) (#28)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    he was medicated with something. He certainly looked and sounded like he was.

    Parent
    He ::should:: be. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    I'm with you fellas.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:55:44 AM EST
    I couldn't bring myself to tune in...I had heard enough bull at work yesterday, couldn't stand no more.

    I read some Philip K. Dick instead...good stuff.

    Parent

    The Man In The High Castle? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:00:47 AM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Nah...Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    Soldiers wasted - a war crime (none / 0) (#5)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:56:07 PM EST
    Before the war in 2003 most experts on Iraq made clear that decapitating the Saddam regime may well end up in a civil war.

    They were right.

    In 2003 some said that twice as many soldiers are need to pacify the country. In theory it was correct, send one million soldiers might have done it. The US doesn't have this number.

    Now we get the discounted price - add 20,000 or 30,000 soldiers. Yes sure, it's after Xmas sale you can buy peace for less.

    Stand back there's a Stampede coming (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mreddieb on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:21:28 AM EST
    After GB's Lincolnish rebel rousing prose in his awe inspiring speech, College campuses around the country are bracing themselves for a (Yellow) Elephant Stampede. Web traffic has been very light immediately after Bush's words to America. Every right wing site has a single sign posted "Gone to enlist". Every loyal repuglican in office has announced one or more of his offspring or immediated relative including their spouses(Of recruiting age) plans to sign up to go and fight in Iraq. Wow what a Decider and chief we have. Sorry I have to go now my ride to the recruitment center is hear. My six year old is inlisting.

    A side by side comparison of Bush's speech (none / 0) (#12)
    by aw on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:41:27 AM EST
    to LBJ's SOTU in 1967.  Sounds familiar.

    LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

    GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

    There's more.Attytood

    Will Bunch adds:

    Two things, though. First of all, only 7,917 American troop had died in Vietnam through the end of 1966, or ten days before Johnson's speech. From the beginning of 1967 though the end of the war, an addition 50,285 -- more than six times as many -- Americans would lose their lives.

    Also, and we're not endorsing this action by any means, then or now, but it is interesting to note that in that 1967 SOTU, LBJ also called for a 6 percent surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes to pay for the cost of the war. That's a level of responsibility -- and yes, sacrifice -- for war that our current president is unwilling to take.



    Good Point aw.... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    Deja vu all over again....bomb-makers laughing all the way to the bank.

    Parent
    Laughing all the way to the bank (none / 0) (#92)
    by aw on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    If you think the Iraq war hasn't worked out very well for anyone, think again.  Defense contractors such as Lockheed are thriving.  And no wonder:  Here's the story of how Lockheed's interest--as opposed to those of the American citizenry--set the course of US policy after 9/11.

    "It used to be just an airplane company," John Pike, a military analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org says about Lockheed Martin. "Now it's a warfare company. It's an integrated solution provider. It's a one-stop shop. Anything you need to kill the enemy, they will sell you."

    They also will tell you who the enemy is. And whether it was seamless or serendipitous, Stephen Hadley, referred to by The New York Times as one of the more significant Lockheed operatives in the Bush White House, was there to tie it all together.


    Playboy

    Parent
    aw, why do you bring up Vietnam? (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    But since did, you forget the Tet offensive, Cronkite's huge mistake in calling the results wrong and the riots and demonstrations within the US that helped convince the North to keep fighting, killing thousands of US troops in the process.

    As for taxes, if you think we should have an jncrease you don't have to wait for Bush to act. You can send a checl to the U.S. Treasury for any amount at any time. Can they count on you??

    Parent

    illegal wars ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:17:39 AM EST
    ... started on lies, that's what killed the troops.

    Parent
    So why wait? (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    Come on Walter? Can you spare an extra $50??  Don't forget to put your SSN on the check.

    Parent
    walter (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:10:49 PM EST
    Yes..... bad economy... stock market going up, unemployment at 4.5%....new job creation strong..inflation low..... oil prices falling...

    You guys make me giggle...

    Parent

    My kid just turned 18. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:17:46 AM EST
    His Selective Service Registration Form arrived right on schedule.

    Canada is nice (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    this time of year.

    Parent
    Here is some relatively GOOD NEWS... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:27:25 AM EST
    ...for a change.
    WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tim Johnson's condition has been upgraded from critical to fair, four weeks after he was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage, and he no longer needs a ventilator to help him breathe.
    ...
    Doctors have said he is steadily improving and has been responsive to his family and physicians, following commands, squeezing his wife's hand and understanding speech.
    ...
    In cases like Johnson's, doctors often depend on the patient's ability to answer questions to assess any cognitive damage caused by the hemorrhage.

    Barbara Boxer will chair the Senate Ethics Committee while Johnson recovers...

    Bush's Plan (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fredo on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    Am I safe in assuming that, however they assess the plan's likelihood of success, everyone here hopes that it will succeed?  (Why do I sense that this is not, in fact, a safe assumption?)

    Hoping for success (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    Is one thing.  Pinning it on the "plan" of a liar, idiot and sociopath is another.  Bush even lied about what he was wrong about.  He is not man enough to stand up and admit what a complete f*ckup this was from the beginning, so like a spoiled child he concocts a mistake (I should've surged last year), which is akin to a murderer saying he's mostly sorry his kids had to see him on trial.

    Bush is a disgrace, a failure in every way a human being can be one, and a entirely childish mind.  The best thing he and almost everyone in his administration could do for the country is drop dead.  Anything short of that, and we'll still be suffering because of their incompetence, greed, vanity and stupidity.

    Bush admits mistake, my ass.  What a useless pile of dung.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    Bush even lied about what he was wrong about

    He was setting up a strawman argument. Trying to get implicit agreement that his invasion was justified, by saying that his mistake was not sending enough troops in.

    George. Your mistake was invading in the first place.

    But George? NO ONE expects you to get it.

    Parent

    That's like.... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    hoping to cure lung cancer by smoking Marlboros.  Hope all you want, but it ain't gonna happen.

    Parent
    Define success (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Al on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    Hope is sometimes un-called for (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mreddieb on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    If A man jumpes off a thirty story bulding. Demanding that every one watching must also say they hope he survives the fall seem silly doesn't it. I believe your suggestion is geared more to impune the patriotism of those who deplore the bushbag escalation! It's the same old tired tactic of demanding that we must always make the caveat that "It is great that Saddam is no longer in power" when anyone questions the unwarranted need to invade Iraq.  

    Parent
    Ed (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    Apples and oranges. And why would you have a problem saying, "I hope it works??"

    And then disagree with the strategy all you want.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    would you insult someone with the assumption that they would fall for that, Jim?

    Parent
    "I am not fond of expecting catastrophes... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    but there are cracks in the Universe.

    Stephen Smith, American Playright

    Parent

    Speaking of cracks in the universe (none / 0) (#54)
    by aw on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki is living "on borrowed time", but that she is confident he can give Iraq security.

    BBC


    Parent

    Maliki doesn't even want to be there anymore (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:57:58 PM EST
    January 3, 2007
    "I wish it could be done with even before the end of this term. I would like to serve my people from outside the circle of senior officials, maybe through the parliament, or through working directly with the people," Maliki told the newspaper.

    "I didn't want to take this position. I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again," he said.



    Parent
    Well, if Condi is sure, we can leave now right? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    Even if you are one of the 26% (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    who agree with his premises that the invasion was justified and that the only mistake was not sending enough troops, Bush is not even listening to the general he just the other day named to replace Casey as commander of Multi-National Forces - Iraq; Lieutenant General David Petraeus:

    Via Crooks and Liars this morning:

    Nothing like having your own Generals disprove your actions. Gen Petraeus is the author of the  counter-insurgency manual and supplies yet another reason why sending over 20,000 troops into Iraq is a joke.

    So it doesn't look like Iraq is really Bushs' main focus anyway.

    But then, Petraeus is reporting to Admiral Fallon who has just taken over CentCom from Abizaid:

    Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault--and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind.
    ...
    Bush appears to be planning for a wider war--with much higher risk of catastrophic failure--not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.

    The whole speech last night was another smoke and mirrors show to fog the minds of the 26 percenters.

    Do The Math (none / 0) (#65)
    by john horse on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    More on why the numbers that Bush is sending dont add up.  Here is what General Petreus had to say about the number of combat troops needed (in Slate, I found article via talkinpointsmemo)

    One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower--at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.

    Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required--and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.

    Edger is right.  This doesnt add up.  Do the math.

    Parent

    Math is like facts (none / 0) (#71)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    Real men trust their gut.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    gut their trusts?

    Parent
    The undeclared war against Iran? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Madison Guy on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    Would you buy a used war from this man? Maybe you don't have to buy a used war, after all. Maybe we'll get a shiny new one with Iran instead. Maybe Iraq was just a detour, or a test drive. No wonder Bush looked scared. Time to brush up on impeachment.

    Oh, it's been declared allright. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    Unfortunately by Cheney, instead of Congress.

    Parent
    Patraeus (none / 0) (#37)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    Handled Mosul wll by involving the locals and not purging indiscriminantly. However, It was Kurdish territory and they were the only area ripe for "liberation". I wish Patraeus luck.

    Why does anyone let them speak at all? (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:52:14 PM EST
    Brilliant choice of words on the part of Rice and sure to be encouraging to P.M Diem..er Maliki.

    Good God.

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    You here the truth in the strangest places.

    On account of a conflict, I couldn't watch the President's address this evening; for any self-respecting contrarian it's difficult to watch any national leader's wind-bagging, but in the  second-term Big Brother atmosphere we face I had a date with bourbon after work.  Imperialism is much easier to deal with when you're scanning over post-speech notes and catching clips on the tee-vee a couple of drinks into the night.

    I mean, it's better to fight Islamofascism when you're tipsy now than fight an imperial empire when you're sober later, right?

    Remember post-"surge" Vietnam?  I don't.  I'm too darned young, but I hear it was pretty terrible; the death-scalation from 3,000 to 60,000, now statistics in the history books and chiseled into walls; down the memory hole for most of us.  We could prevent it again if the weak-kneed Democratic patsy Congresscritters could stand up against our führer, but it clearly wasn't in their best interests to prevent the invasion in the first place, and I assume it'll be another year or so before the backlash of inaction stings them enough to do a thing about it.  After all, it's the tradition of government to throw more money, effort, and lives at failing projects in might of salvation.  Why stop now?

    I suggest that we, in our morning headaches, call for the return of every last troop who wants to come back, or give them the option to stay where they are on their own dollar.  From all 135 countries we have them planted in.  For the interim, keep screaming and celebrate your own Two Minutes Hate.

    Libertarians sometimes make the most sense. The contrarian in me also drives me to drink. And I got a headache this morning too.

    Stupid question.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    why do we need troops, aka people with guns, in 135 countries?

    One Hundred Thirty Five Countries!

    I'd be thru the roof if another country had their troops anywhere near my house.

    Truth is right Peaches.

    Parent

    peaches (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    The problem with being a contrarian is that it is a totally negative position, and never contributes to that little extra bit of help that makes a winner.

    Betting against the market as a contrarian is fine as an investment strategy, have done it myself, and will probably do it again. But as a lifestyle? No thanks. I'd rather be wrong trying to do something.

    BTW - Got your garden turned and mulched??

    Parent

    Its ready (none / 0) (#93)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:17:52 AM EST
    All turned and mulched, and the Garlic got a good start this fall. I'm going through the seed catalogs as we speak. Built another cold frame this winter, and I'm getting ready to plant my tomatoe, peppers, and onion seeds in doors under the lights.

    I'm also working on a couple of gaited arbor for entrances to little spot of paradise.

    Gardening and eating all of its rewards keeps the cantrarian at bay (with a little help from the Ales) and makes me positive. But who are you calling negative anyway? The Muslems are going to get us? Jeez, you're giving me nightmares. stop it.

    Its the debt, its the weather, its our gov't, its our military and violent culture. Thats whats going to do us gardeners in, my friend. The muslims, you know, they like to garden too. They grow some nice olives I'm told.

    Parent

    If Bush Was Wrong Before . . . (none / 0) (#67)
    by john horse on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    Now that Bush has admitted that he was wrong about troop levels, here is what I would like to know:

    When over the last 3 1/2 years did it finally occur to Bush that he might be wrong about troop levels?

    One frequent criticism of Bush and his supporters was that the news media was showing an inaccurate picture of Iraq because their reports were too pessimistic.  Now that Bush has admitted that he was wrong, weren't these news reports much more accurate than Bush's description of the situation?

    If Bush was wrong about Iraq in the past, then how do we know he isn't wrong now?

    Not just that ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    ... but the 'new way forward' is exactly what he's done in the past.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    how do we know they weren't wrong to invade at all?

    There was a crooked man, who walked a crooked mile..

    Too bad he's dead... (none / 0) (#69)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:42:58 PM EST
    "Anyone who commits the American Army in the Asian mainland should have his head examined." -- Douglas MacArthur, 1949.

    A Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (none / 0) (#76)
    by john horse on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:12:03 PM EST
    Condi appeared before the Senate Armed Services committee today to defend Bush's Iraq escalation and got grilled by both Republicans and Democrats.  Not a single Senator on the committee, Republican or Democrat, came out in support of Bush's plan.  Senator Voinivich (R-Ohio) even said that Bush can no longer count on his support.  (Crooks and liars link here)  

    Poor Condi.  I think she had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.

    George W. Bush -- traitorous dog! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Aaron on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:03:35 AM EST
    Hard to believe that any thinking American bothers to listen to the inane drivel that continues to flow from George W. Bush's mouth.

    The man is a moron, an idiot who has dragged this country down in the depths of moral depravity so base and low that we may never recover as a nation.

    George W. Bush is a criminal who fabricated a war, and then lost that war, the only thing more contemptible and abhorrent than he is We The People of the United States who allowed this man to become our leader.  

    At present those who are paying the heaviest price for our inability to identify this traitorous fool, are the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.  But make no mistake, the people of the United States will be made to pay and pay dearly.  The death we've got coming our way will make the sacrifice of a few thousand soldiers seem like an insect bite by comparison.

    It's called Karma baby, and there ain't no escaping it.  In all likelihood it will be the children of our country who will reap what George W. Bush and this White House of thieves and murderers has wrought.  A fantastic legacy of death and destruction to come.

    Down with George W. Bush, down with totalitarian fascists and the destroyers of democracy, down with all the war mongering traitors to our Republic.

    Please don't... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Oswald on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:11:54 AM EST
    mistake me here. I'm not advocating the scenario as a solution (I certainly don't want to be 'disappeared'). It's a nightmare scenario, for the sane amongst us. It's a win/win scenario for some though (if 'the buck stops here' and 'dead men tell no tales').

    I didn't. (4.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:19:29 AM EST
    I fantasize too sometimes, I admit. ;-)

    Parent
    Gotta love that O.T "Cronkite" troll (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    Again. More history from Talk Radio U.

    From TWN (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    January 11, 2007
    Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?
    Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

    The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.
    ...
    Bush may really have pushed the escalation pedal more than any of us realize.
    ...
    UPDATE: This exchange today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee between Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden and Senator Chuck Hagel with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is full of non-denial denials and evasive answers to Biden's query about the President's ability to authorize military operations against forces within Iran and Syria:

    SEN. BIDEN: Last night, the president said, and I quote, "Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges, and that begins with addressing Iran and Syria." He went on to say, "We will interrupt the flow of support for Iran and Syria, and we will seek out and destroy networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

    Does that mean the president has plans to cross the Syrian and/or Iranian border to pursue those persons or individuals or governments providing that help?

    SEC. RICE: Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was just asked this question, and I think he perhaps said it best. He talked about what we're really trying to do here which is to protect our forces and that we are doing that by seeking out these networks that we know are operating in Iraq. We are doing it through intelligence. We are then able, as we did on the 21st of December, to go after these groups where we find them.




    Begin the launch sequence with Iran (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:37:02 PM EST
    Russ Wellen at Atlantic Free Press in a post dated tomorrow dissects Cheney machinations, deconstructs the long series of powerplays in DC and around the world and the a$$ covering and deceit leading up to sanctioning Iran, and explains why and how an attack on Iran is imminent.
    Attacking Shiite Iran seems now to be within the comfort zone of Rice, as well, of course, as Cheney and probably Bush.
    ...
    Does Cheney think that, despite his intention to attack Iran, propping up the Shiites in Iraq will win points with the Persian public? Perhaps he's swallowed whole the Neocon tenet which holds that, post-bombing, Iran's citizens seize the day (after). They overthrow President Ahmadinejad for double-daring the US to attack and cast out the mullahs for suffocating their culture. Sure, just like our path to Baghdad was strewn with rose petals.
    ...
    Cheney may be ready to begin the launch sequence with Iran, but first he needs to keep Congress from voting for a binding resolution* to stay his hand. We got a sneak preview of how he intends to manage this when the administration ordered the deployment of an aircraft carrier, the Dwight D. Eisenhower, with its strike group, to the Middle East.

    Though it's been diverted to Somalia, two more aircraft carriers, the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Ronald Reagan, with their strike groups, have been since sent to the Persian Gulf. Thus do we see Cheney's plan unfold. Ostensibly intended to warn off Iran's own naval exercises, the deployment's actual purpose is less likely to respond to a provocation than to provoke a response.

    Not much imagination is required to envision a skittish Iran spooked into launching one of their state-of-the-art Shahib 4 missiles at one of our ships. Nor would anything more be required to make the obstacle of Congressional approval for a US attack magically disappear.
    ...
    Watch what happens when the first whiff of public outrage over an Iranian strike, should it occur, wafts past the Democrats' nostrils. The spine the Democrats are finally starting to grow about Iraq notwithstanding, stand clear of the door to the Senate chambers lest you be trampled by Democrats rushing to vote yea to retaliate.


    * Some with sense in the GOP are doing their best to throw a wrench into Cheney's plans, but it looks like too little too late:
    In the U.S. House today, Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a resolution requiring the President "to receive congressional authorization to use military force against Iran,"


    I hope he's wrong Edger (none / 0) (#100)
    by aw on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:23:06 PM EST
    about
    Democrats rushing to vote yea to retaliate.


    Parent
    I would have thought not (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:00:39 AM EST
    But I guess I haven't paid close enough attention: Hoyer and Dems Set Stage for Iran Attack

    AIPAC works both sides pretty intensively. The Dems will fall over each other, especially if there is an Iranian attack, or a faked one (by Israel?), on a ship or other US asset in the ME or the Indian Ocean. It looks like Cheney/Bush are trying to force Iran into it, and I don't think Iran is dumb enough to fall for it, except that they if there is too much pressure they may begin to feel that one will be faked anyway so they might as well?

    Iran also has Russian made Sunburn Missiles:

    when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

    The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system.
    ...
    The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet.

    Remember Argentina using the Exocet to destroy HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War in '82? I'm sure Israel has equal or better capability.

    Parent
    War drumming from 'liberal' media... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    That there will be war with Iran is now virtually guaranteed. The Bush Administration set out a clear casus belli over the weekend in two stories - masterworks of warmongering propaganda - appearing in two major basions of the "liberal media." The argument for this new war - buttressed with "facts" that as usual went unchallenged by the corporate scribes - is actually stronger and cleaner than the collection of conflicting mendacities that led to the invasion of Iraq. It is vain to hope that the Democrats, who have themselves demonized Iran with such ferocity, will stand against the call for the new war when it comes, in the terms now being established by the Administration.
    "According to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes and along the Tigris River."
    ...
    In fact, the devices were made in America.


    Parent
    I hear you, Edger (none / 0) (#104)
    by aw on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    I don't hold much hope that it can be stopped.  The people be damned.

    Parent
    One of the problems too is that (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    Ahmanijedad is whipping up war hysteria as much as he can in Iran as Bush et al are in America. His support has been drying up for some time there and he would love a US attack, even or especially one with tactical nukes on Irans nuclear installations, to 'prove' to Iranians the the Great Satan is exactly what he says it is.

    Neither of these guys has any concern for their citizens. 'People' are just the wooden markers on the Risk board.

    Parent

    Maybe there is something (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    Rawstory, January 14, 2007
    House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) "made clear that he's going to use the full committee" to address foreign policy issues.
    ...
    "We must keep the focus on our troops, Kucinich said. "The minute impeachment is on the table, this President will accelerate the war even more."

    But he added, "if Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off." Later he added, "We need to safeguard our Constitution." If the President takes steps towards another war, Kucinich warned, Congress could make "an active effort" toward impeachment.

    "The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran," he said, adding that the Bush administration is "treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on."



    Parent
    We just can't look away from the carnage (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by aw on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    any longer.  I hope they will keep the others honest.

    Parent
    Im Curious (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:12:30 AM EST
    Why ppj is free to troll about Vietnam, but my responce is deleted.

    Maybe it didn't post for some reason... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    ...Jondee. There are 0 hidden comments on this thread, so no one "zeroed" it out.

    Perhaps you could try again? I enjoy your comments.

    Bill (none / 0) (#109)
    by aw on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    It was deleted.  I saw it.


    Parent