Fleet of ships leaving Norfolk to bomb Iran

[kaygore]

By DAVE LINDORFF
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

<snip>

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received recent orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

<snip>

Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning.

<snip>


McGovern, who had first told a group of anti-Iraq War activists Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during an ongoing action called "Camp Democracy," about his being alerted to the strike group deployment, warned, "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening."

[mike_c]

1. this bears watching very closely....

eom

[Freedom_from_Chains]

110. Agreed, all these SOB's need to be watched closely.

[draloo]

121. telegraphing a punch

I remember, back during the Reagan administration, watching groups of Army helicopters flying south along the beach in Ft. Lauderdale. I though it was a little odd. A couple of days later, the United States invaded Grenada. I think that they are too obviously telegraphing a punch. It may be for show. The only danger is if the other guy flinches and throws a punch of his own. Then the fight is on.

[HeeBGBz]

216. Oh man, that was what happened last night

Helicopters flying in constant circles in the area over the beach. Big, heavy, noisy ones that were loud enough to make me go outside and wonder WTF? I even asked myself to check to see if the shit had hit the fan somewhere.

I forgot all about it until I read your post.

[LuckyTheDog]

143. October surprise?

Could this be the "October surprise" Karl Rove has been bragging about?

[legin]

168. A Carrier Group equals about 9 ships

(snip)

CVBGs have no definitive specification and are formed and dissolved on an ad-hoc basis, and one may be different from another. However, they all comprise similar types of ships, and a typical U.S. carrier battle group might include:

a carrier, usually Nimitz-class or Kitty Hawk-class — The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government, ranging from simply showing the flag, to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, their aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces. The carrier is the flagship of the battle group, with the commanding rear admiral on board, making use of the advanced combat information center and communications suite.

two guided missile cruisers, usually Ticonderoga class — multi-mission surface combatants, equipped with Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability.

two to three guided missile destroyers, usually Arleigh Burke-class — multi-mission surface combatant, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW)

a frigate, usually Oliver Hazard Perry-class — primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)

two attack submarines, usually Los Angeles-class — in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines

a combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship, usually Sacramento or Supply class — provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence: on station, ready to respond

(snip)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group

[driver8]

218. I remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait. I was stationed on the

USS Eisenhower at the time and we were in the Med. A few days later we were going through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea.

The USS Ticonderoga was in our battle group and was within sight the whole time. Our Commanding Officer said, "We keep the Ticonderoga close by because she's a pretty good shooter."

We usually saw the submarine when they took the picture of the battle group and that was it. We never saw it again after that.

[AX10]

2. Would Bush do something so stupid as beating a hornet's nest...

with a bat just to gain possible political advantage right before an election where his party is favored to lose both Houses of congress? Answer: Yes!

[razors edge]

19. from the screened in porch

with our kids wielding the bat, hell yes!

[Imagevision]

104. Quick, get your duck tape before it's too late - hahahahahahaha.....

[NotGivingUp]

221. great reply! it made me laugh even though i was feeling sick

about the thought of going to war with iran.

[ddeclue]

32. This would be a military disaster for the United States.

Iran is NOT Iraq. It has 3 times the population and almost 2 times the land area. It has money, weapons, and a substantial military. We could bomb the hell out of them but they would retaliate against our forces and fleet in the Gulf. It would also send oil prices into the stratosphere...anyone want $12/gallon gasoline? Anyone??? This in turn would send the world economy into a tailspin.

If we let our fleet get bottled up in the Gulf they will be sitting ducks for the Iranians who can easily control the Strait of Hormuz and strike our ships with cruise missiles of their own, not to mention the fact that it would substantially cut off our forces in Iraq and possibly subject them to attack by Iranian ground and air forces when they are already battling against the insurgents in Iraq.

This can only be seen as imbecility, not leadership by the American people.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[fuzzyball]

36. Is this the same Iran who could not defeat Saddam after a decade of war?

If yes, how can Iran be all that powerful? Just asking out of curiosity...

[Shipwack]

50. Actually, it was Iraq that couldn't beat Iran...

Iraq was the aggressor, and even with the use of chemical weapons couldn't gain an advantage.

Iran doesn't have to be "all that powerful", just powerful enough to defend itself.

Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't suffered from years of economic sanctions.

Unlike Iraq, Iran isn't hated by its neighbors, and can probably count on getting at least intel, if not military support, from other Arab Countries.

Unlike Iraq, Iran isn't divided by ethnic clashes.

This could end up being similar to the Falklands(or Malvina's) War, where a world leader sent a military force to fight a foreign country for political reasons. Despite chest beating about how "backward" the Argentinians were compared to the mighty, modern United Kingdom, the UK lost two ships to land based Exocet missiles, and almost lost their carrier to a diesel boat that they couldn't locate.

[ieoeja]

115. The UK won that war.

Actually, the loss of some ships makes it easier on the government. We have reached the point where only the most hardcore partisans are beating the "don't question the president during wartime" drum. That falls on the deaf ears of the vast majority of the public. But let Iran sink a couple of ships, and suddenly there is a *REAL* enemy for us to fight.

My advice if you see an American ship go down in the gulf ... buy stock in the flag making corporations.

Right: killing Iranians will intimidate them.
Left: you will only make them angry.
Me: you will only make them angry.

Left: killing Americans will intimidate us.
Right: you will only make us angry.
Me: you will only make us angry.

Americans would react to Iranians killing Americans the same way Iranians would react to Americans killing Iranians.

[Shipwack]

138. My post wasn't about winning or losing.

My point is that a lot of good men died because of the incompetence and complacency of their officers, and died for a speck of land that has more sheep than people.

We -probably- would "win" a war with Iran. A couple of years ago victory would have been a certainty, but the idiot boy-king has blunted the sharp edge of our military. However, "winning" will cost us too many needless deaths... Already too many have died for no good reason.

[DocSavage]

172. Many in the

military think that it would be 26 years too late. The country should have been occupied 2 weeks after the embassy was taken over.

This is not saying that military action now is right or wrong, but there is a big grude lingering out there.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

179. But the chest-thumping Brits were annihiliated 3X in Afghanistan

in the 1800's and early 1900's. First Anglo-Afghan War, 1839-1842, was the worst defeat the British ever suffered during the Victorian period-- an entire British army of about 20,000 was utterly wiped out by Afghan warriors retreating from Kabul http://www.bl.uk/collections/afghan/summary1838to1842.html The Brits were so incompetent they wound up sacking the Kabul bazaar-- which was a gathering place for the Afghan groups who'd been allied to the British beforehand!

That war was classic for the Brits thumbing their noses at how inferior the Afghans were, and it cost them dearly, as the Afghans defeated the British not only then but in two more Anglo-Afghan Wars. While we're on the subject of South America, the Brits in fact were also defeated in invasions of Buenos Aires in the early 1800's (though not by "Argentina" as it didn't exist yet-- it was more a motley collection of French/Spanish officers, criollos and Africans, the "Buenos Aires contingent"), with the Brits again snootily going in and assuming they'd humiliate their enemies-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_Rio_de_la_Plata

The Brits were smashed in Aden in the 1960's, same idea. The point being, the British were constantly condescending toward the "darky peoples" in the areas they wanted to conquer, and they were repeatedly humiliated b/c they failed to take the skills of their adversaries seriously. Ditto for any attack on Iran.

[TheWatcher]

53. Yes, this is the same Iran that continued to arm itself and become

much stronger militarily since you stopped paying attention, which was probably fifteen years ago.

Don't let your ignorance get in the way of the facts.

Iran is hardly our equal, but if we attack them they are enough to be our undoing. They cannot match us militarily toe to toe, but they do not need to.

They merely need to give us enough rope to hang ourselves.

Which we would most assuredly do.

Wake Up.

[leesa]

57. They also have powerful allies...Syria, Russia, China

Like Iraq, they are not in the wrong here and their allies will probably help them.

[calimary]

82. All they have to do is hunker down and outlast us.

Many reasons, as cited here, why they're in much better shape to keep us at bay than Iraq was.

I wonder how long the military will keep following orders, when so many of them seem to be realizing that those orders are guaranteeing them doom?

[fuzzyball]

131. I hope Bush is not planning to occupy Iran as he has done in Iraq..

My guess is it will be strictly bombing and cruise missles affair.
I could'nt agree more that occupying Iran or sending boots on ground
there would be asinine.

[Ferret Annica]

155. If we bomb Iran...

...we deserve to have Iran's allies who have the capibility come here and bomb us.

It would be interesting to see how the overstressed and extended U.S. Military can handle that.

[ddeclue]

190. With WHAT?

We have only about 10,000 troops immediately available for anything else that pops up.. We will get our ass kicked if we try to occupy Iran. The best Bush could hope for would be a massive air strike using SAC from Diego Garcia or the States or using our sub fleet. Anything more than that and he will suffer lots of U.S. casualties and will lose to the Iranians who have a substantial military. It would also cost us a quick outright defeat in Iraq. (i.e. the "exit" strategy for Iraq will be to get so involved in Iran that we lose BOTH cases almost immediately.)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[fuzzyball]

134. Saddam had the same set of allies PLUS France & Germany

A lot of good did that do to him.

[PaulaFarrell]

159. Saddam had no allies

He had some countries that did business with him, and a lot of countries that opposed the war. That is not the same as having allies.

[ddeclue]

191. Iran is NOT Iraq.

Bush has made NO case for WMD's. He can't make a case for "freedom" vs. dictatorship given that Iran has a democratically elected parliament and right now is Bush and not Iran that is being accused of torture. (i.e. "rape rooms"..etc.)

Iran really doesn't need any allies to defeat us, we are overstretched, the Gulf is a highly vulnerable place to put surface ships given Iran has about half the coastline and controls the Straits of Hormuz. We will get our ass kicked.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Dan]

154. and it is very possible,

that due to treaties between Iran and China, we might have a very serious issue on our hands. And even the start of a draft - which would occur (young GOP'ers think on that) would not be enough to stop the military shit storm.

If such an action occurs, then the Rapture may become our reality.

[windbreeze]

90. Well....seeings as how WE were in the middle of that...

situation, and helping both sides...WE determined who won that conflict..
wb

[fuzzyball]

129. Correct, we did not want a single dominating power in the middle-east,

but currently Iran is THE dominating power left there
and on top of that it is the most virulent islamic sharia
pushing country which is not our friend. SA is just as islamic
but atleast the regime is friendly to us. Now if Iran is allowed
to get nukes, it will destabilize the middle-east like nothing else.

[PaulaFarrell]

160. Actually, bombing Iran will destabilize the ME (and the world)

like nothing else.

[ddeclue]

192. It will literally start WW3!

Maybe Bush is hoping the "rapture" comes before the election...

Doug D.

[jpak]

100. The US arms embargo had a lot to do with that

And they have been planning for a military confrontation with the US since 1979.

This will not be pretty...

[fuzzyball]

126. War is never pretty, and war with Iran will be no exception...

The problem is not Iran, it is the current leadership
in Iran. When you have a despot like Ahmedinejad vowing
openly the destruction of Israel, calling holocaust a myth
created by western countries and enriching uranium, it is
them who are creating a formula for a pre-emptive war.

[jpak]

137. Iran is no threat to the US - there is no justification for war - period.

and GOP talking points are never pretty either...

[fuzzyball]

140. So you have no problem if our ally Israel gets nuked by Iran?

You are right US is not under immediate threat from Iran
but if you have bothered to hear what Ahmedinejad has said
regarding Israel and jews you might understand the threat
Isreal is under.

[dave420]

169. Then that's Israel's problem.

Israel can ask for assistance from the UN. Shit, it gets $3bn a year from the US for its toys. Surely that's enough. The US is not Israel, no matter how furiously many Americans love it. Iran has a right to call for the destruction of Israel, just as much as Israel has a right to demand to occupy land that it didn't own.

All this anger over Israel, and yet people still think Israel is a good idea. Ridiculous. Move the whole fucking mess to the mid west. Save everyone's money, and thousands of lives.

[jpak]

176. Horseshit - Iran doesn't have nukes or a relaible missiles to deliver them

And they would not nuke Israel even if they had one - it would be suicide.

So yeah, I have no problems with "it" (because "it" doesn't exist)...

[manic expression]

187. I don't have a problem with something that doesn't exist

Iran is FAR from gaining nuclear abilities. That's a FACT.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REASON TO ATTACK IRAN. AT ALL. Your "justification" is nonexistent and wrong.

[ddeclue]

194. Will NEVER happen!

Israel is a nuclear power and would retaliate and Iran knows that so don't even waste our time with this nonsense.

I don't know where you get off calling Israel "our ally" anyways...who decided that? They have spied on us and stolen military secrets, they practice a double standard on human rights, and I frankly get tired of America constantly favoring Israel over all the other middle eastern countries with MY tax dollars.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[GETPLANING]

206. Do you have any evidence that Iran is about to nuke "Isreal"?

Israel will get what it deserves. I have no problem with Jewish people, but Israel is a terror state, make no mistake about it. Just ask 1,200 dead Lebanese citizens. Attacking a military target is an act of war. Attacking a city and killing innocent civilians is an act of terrorism. Period.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

178. Fuzzyball, the "call for destruction of Israel" was a mistranslation

That "wipe Israel off the map" quote is parroted again and again. But a group of Farsi Persian scholars looked at the original quote a while ago, and the most accurate translation is more like, "evict Israel from its vast zone of occupation"-- which in the eyes of Ruhollah Khomeini (who originally uttered something to that effect), includes East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank.

Ahmedinejad's messianism and apocalyptic beliefs do bother the sh*t out of me. But then again, we have tens of millions of people in the United States-- the Dispensationalist Left Behind Christian sect-- who are just about begging for a big ME War to be followed by a nuclear war, since they think this would hasten the Rapture. IOW, they've convinced themselves that it's their job to bring Armageddon about themselves. Can you imagine how incredibly dangerous this is??? And this is in the US. So I say, in response to claims about how crazy Ahmedinejad is-- we need to look in the mirror ourselves.

[ddeclue]

196. Oh get over yourself already...

He was duly elected by their people in a democratic election and you vastly exaggerate when you talk about "enriching uranium". If you want to worry about "enriching uranium" then worry about Pakistan and North Korea.

Iran has done NOTHING to justify all of Bush's saber rattling - this is all a Rovian strategy to try to win in 2006 like he did in 2002. It won't work this time.

I get tire of Americans who put Israel's interests ahead of those of THEIR OWN COUNTRY - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If you would rather put Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States, then immigrate to Israel - pick a country and stop playing both ends against the middle.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[driver8]

219. That's what I tell my father-in-law. He considers a politician's opinion

regarding Israel to be most important. I told him he was full of shit and if he loved Israel so much, move there.

He was talking about the Israel war with Lebanon last week and tried to get my wife and I to engage him. We know better...nothing we say will ever change his mind. Plus, the topic always gets him riled up. I've learned that lesson.

[Stand and Fight]

106. Take the time and do some dammed research... n/t

[fuzzyball]

128. Please enlighten me with bits and pieces of your research..it will

save me heckuva lot of time.

[agincourt]

142. Are you all pumped up for war with Iran?

just asking out of curiosity.

[fuzzyball]

152. No warmonger here...I fear for Israel's survival with a nuke powered Iran

run by the likes of Ahmedinejad though. I would very much
prefer all WMD's in the area are gone. Especially those
countries (such as Iran) which have OPENLY threatened the
destruction of others.

[dave420]

170. Massive hypocrisy

WE have nuclear weapons, and we start many, many more wars with other countries than Iran ever has. Why is it OK for us to blow the shit out of tens of thousands of people, threaten people with nukes, etc. and then turn around and deny Iran even gets uranium for nuclear power plants, which isn't even that useful in making nuclear weapons. It's massive hypocrisy. The shit-sundae that is Israel has already caused countless deaths - using people's legitimate objections to Israel (occupation never goes down well) as a reason to not trust them is riduclous.

[ddeclue]

193. ISRAEL is a nuclear power...

It has several hundred nukes.

Iran wouldn't dare attack them directly with nuclear weapons. It would be suicide.

Iran doesn't even have nukes and isn't even close. 3% enrichment is commercial power grade. You need 97%+ for bombs and they are years and years from that.

Ahmedinejad is just posturing for his domestic audience, the same as Bush does here.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[serryjw]

195. Thank you for your sanity

Ahmedinejad is posturing for the Muslim world but * isn't

[ddeclue]

197. Sometimes Bush postures - sometimes he's just nuts...

I think this Iran stuff is just posturing for the elections. I hope he really isn't THAT damned dumb and if he is that some admiral in the Pentagon somewhere will blow the whistle on him on the CBS evening news.

Doug D.
Orlando FL

[serryjw]

199. My problem with your logic

is they CAN'T allow us win. It will get very ugly and they know it..they are just desperate

[ddeclue]

200. Confused by your post who is "they" in your sentence?

Do you mean the Bush administration can't allow us to win or Iran can't allow us to win..

and are you referring to the election or an attack on Iran?

Please clarify.

Doug D.

[serryjw]

203. Sorry

THEY= *
THEY will do anything to keep the congress..FEAR has worked so far and THEY have no other hand to play

[ddeclue]

207. I don't think it will this time...

You can only go to the well so many times..(pardon the mixed metaphor)...before they (the people) figure out you're a one-trick pony...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[fuzzyball]

215. You are correct...atleast for the moment but...

remember that our intelligence did not even know that
Pakistan was about to test their first nuclear device.
I have lost faith in our CIA to know the facts. It was
the same situation when India made a series of nuclear
device tests. We found out only after the seismographs
recorded the wave patterns.

But may be you have better spies and better intelligence
on Iran's nuclear progress than the CIA. Any thing is
possible in this crazy world.

From what I can tell, Iran is ruled by mullahcracy. Iran
is the main source of funding for Hezbullah. Hezbullah just
fought a war with Israel. Iran's president has declared
that holocaust never happened and that Israel should be
destroyed.

And yes Israel has nukes. But if a surprise nuclear attack
on Israel takes place, Israel will no longer be a nuclear
power. It is a tiny country...smaller than Massachusetts.
One nuke and Israel perishes. If I was the government
of Israel there is no way I would allow Iran to become a
nuclear power.

[PADemD]

149. Don't forget

that Hezbollah just claimed to have an additional 20,000 rockets.

[fuzzyball]

153. Where did they come from? I Don't believe Hezbullah's manufactured

them in Lebanon.

[ddeclue]

185. Silkworm cruise missiles from China...

We are talking about a naval fleet going into a very confined space (the Gulf) with a very obvious choke point (the Straits of Hormuz). They would be sitting ducks for Iranian owned, Chinese made Silkworm cruise missiles.

You are thinking 25 years in the past. This is not your father's Iran. They are very wealthy from their oil money and have invested quite a lot into Chinese, Russian, and European military technology. They are also, as I said, a much larger country both physically and population-wise than Iraq. Finally, they are (obstensibly) a democratically elected government and will generally have the support of the population should we decide to attack them.

We just will NOT be able to get away with attacking Iran and it will be a disaster.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[michael_1166]

83. Well I hope this will be a military disaster for the U.S. .

If your soldiers don't learn by using reason that deserting is the only honourable thing a soldier can do, the world can only hope that they'll learn by pain and experiencing loss. Sorry for the harsh worlds, but following orders capable of ruining life on Earth is just very very stupid. It is a crime against planet Earth, and a crime against humanity.

[Stand and Fight]

108. That's a hell of a thing to say...

Completely without compassion for the plight that the soldiers are in... That's the sort of thing that sometimes makes me question the sanity of some people on this site. Luckily, you are a minority opinion.

[michael_1166]

119. Plight?

This thing is going on for how long now? Five, six years? Any man and woman not seeing what they're used for and still wearing an uniform is not in a plight. They're just plain immoral and irresponsible.

[knight_of_the_star]

156. It is a soldier's duty to disobey such orders

It's in the UCMJ that a soldier can disobey an unlawful order and I think picking a fight with Iran might fall in that category considering how fucked we will be if that goes through.

[ChiciB1]

147. I KNOW I Would Desert...

I wouldn't feel like I was defending America... I would feel like I was forced into what some MANIAC wanted and think long and hard about R E A L I T Y or maybe his I N S A N I T Y!!

[savemefromdumbya]

88. what is the USA going to fight them with?

unless they have a draft and even then as you say gas prices rise just before the election would sink Bush

[SDDEM06]

127. We're going to be fighting them with...

spitballs.

Just ask Zell Miller.

[ddeclue]

198. Very interesting how they are going DOWN right now...

They've come down almost 50 cents/gallon in the last 2 months... How dumb do they think I really am? I'm sure they'll head right back up if the GOP wins in November. If there was ever a case to be made for price fixing and price gouging, now is the time - where's Elliot Spitzer right now? The best thing he could do would be to investigate the oil companies for price fixing right now.

Doug D.
Orlando FL

[windbreeze]

89. Could this be the new "Pearl Harbor"??

We allow, no ORDER our carrier group and all the other ships into that strait...and they are sitting ducks...absolute sitting ducks...for sunburn and exocet missiles along the whole coastline of Iran...we could lose them all...men and ships...is * that much of a sadistic maniac...YES he is...omg...I wish we had a way to turn them back...
wb

[ddeclue]

189. Well except that Pearl Harbor was 2500 nautical miles from Japan

This would have been like FDR having Admiral Kimmel take the Pacific Fleet for a "show the flag" cruise along Japan's coastline and it would be every bit as disastrous as that. It's hard to make a "Pearl Harbor" case if what you are doing is going out and intentionally antagonizing your adversaries on their home turf. There will be no sympathy from anyone and the American public will just conclude that George W. Bush is every bit as damned stupid as we have all been saying.

If he wanted to attack Iran, it would make much more sense to use the Air Force or to nuclear ballistic missile submarines. This is just damned stupid of him.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[AX10]

98. And you think that would stop Bush from swatting the nest?

[ClintonTyree]

99. But it would probably solidify a Republican win in November......

after all, we'd be in a 3 front war then and every RepubliCON would be screaming, "stay the course", "stay the course"! The fact that they'd be putting tens of thousands of American military personnel at death's door would be secondary to retaining power. Keeping the reins of power is EVERYTHING to the RepubliCONS. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that Bush would do this merely as a political ploy. He has no conscience. The lives if American soldiers mean nothing to him as long as he keeps his rubber stamp Congress.

Fucking vile, evil, maniacal, shit stain of a human being! :mad:

[ddeclue]

186. No, I really think it would doom the GOP this election...

Because it makes about as much sense as Hitler attacking Russia when he had all he could handle already with the Battle of Britain. It would be every bit as big of a military disaster as that was and people are much more skeptical than they were three years ago.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Imagevision]

101. Where does it state thatFleet of ships leaving Norfolk to bomb Iran

Bush merely attempting to raise the beat of the war drums, remember fear-fear-fear, that's what it's all about baby, now go out and vote for the republican of your choice!!

[dave420]

171. Another example of US terrorism

Using force, or the threat of force, to coerce a people or political system. Same as threatening to bomb Pakistan back to the stone-age. Massive displays of terrorism, yet somehow the US gov't, and its supporters, seem to think the US is beyond reproach. The only way this is going to stop is another revolution, or if the US is bombed to fuck.

[Imagevision]

150. How does Bush bomb Iran without Senate approval?? enlighten me...

[Shipwack]

181. Well. two ways he can go about it...

1) Sends out a message to Chief of Naval Operations, and says "Start "Operation October Surprise", and the admiral tells the local commanders to start bombing operations. He then announces to the world that he has started bombing Iran because it was a threat to the world in general, and the US in particular, and he is allowed to protect the US by attacking first... :eyes:. Gonzales gets on the talk shows and says that the President has authority to do this because of the unitary power of the President... Plus, he's Commander-in-Chief during war time. All of which is total and complete bull, but those will be the talking points.

2) We'll keep flying planes, crowding Iranian ships, entering Iran's territorial waters until they shoot at us, or we strike a mine, or some other incident occurs. Then it's a case of "Remember the Maine!" (or whatever unit is involved), and people will tend to approve of taking action against Iran. They tried doing this with Saddam, and even though it didn't work, it's worth trying again(at least, in their pea brains it is).

[ddeclue]

184. Unfortunately he can...

The Congress has the power to declare war but the President is recognized as the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces. (Technically this is only during a time of war according to the Constitution but they obviously don't care about such "technicalities" these days.)

The War Powers Act passed in the 1970's was supposed to prevent this sort of thing but I don't that THIS Congress would be willing to invoke it or fight for it in the Court system if they did invoke it.

On the other hand, it all may depend on just how much Bush "jumps the shark" as to how willing Congress and the Senate are to go along with it with the election coming up. If a disaster occurs as I have predicted, they may decide to impeach him if he does this.

Doug D.

[minnesota_liberal]

33. And the inevitable result will be proof ...

that all hornets must be eradicated, no matter what the cost.

[Kikosexy2]

81. October...

surprise...or just one of the many surprises coming our way before Nov. 7.?

[wakeme2008]

3. Rove promised an Oct Surprise

:grr:

[Monkeyman]

15. Here we go if true their base will be out in force

[TheFarseer]

34. I'm just not sure this would work in their favor

Almost no one is on board with this!

[ClintonTyree]

102. We'd be at war!

A REAL war, with a REAL war President! :puke: All the RepubliCONS rallying support, flags and car magnets everywhere! Every media outlet issuing White House propaganda to brain dead Americans, showing them our military might (through embedded reporters who can only show what the Pentagon WANTS shown, of course) and rallying those brain dead "values voters" to keep a RepubliCON majority in this most trying of times. :puke: WE'RE AT WAR! BUSH IS THE WAR PRESIDENT AND NEEDS A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS OR THE TERRORISTS WIN!

It's like a bad movie, I can see it all unfolding before me but I'm powerless to do a damned thing about it! :banghead:

[C_U_L8R]

4. Oct 21

SURPRISE!!! Just in time for the midterm elections.

[Generator]

5. So basically they are securing torture, voiding the constitution

stealing the election in November, then starting war with Iran shortly afterwards. Pray to whatever God/Goddess/Devil you believe in that I'm wrong.

[HereSince1628]

6. Why wait? If the force is in place seems like they'd do ASAP

The longer you wait the more Iran gets to prepare retaliation. Give them a couple weeks and they'd sure to be upgrading Hezbollah and al-Sadr

[bigdarryl]

8. Election time

The question is are the people of this country going to fall for this election ploy.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

12. I've been saying for some time, look for an event just before

the election to strike terror in everyone's heart before long. I suppose we should be grateful that it is not an event that is going to happen here, if you know what I mean.

[SmokingJacket]

There will be an incident of some kind, probably shortly before the

election or immediately after, and one that will cause people to support action against Iran. It's all in the works -- anyone with eyes can see it...

[Freedom_from_Chains]

58. I'm thinking before the election, especially if the polls keep

showing that the Republicans might loose Congress. I just don't see them letting that happen at this junction.

[KitSileya]

66. Hah! From someone outside the US,

I'd say it's better it happens on American soil, regardless. If elected American leaders (in Congress, not the selected pResident) let this happen to another sovereign nation, I'd say Americans themselves are the ones who deserve to bear the brunt of their elected leaders' spinelessness and power hunger and greed.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

78. It definitely is a matter of perspective which is directly affected

by one's location.

[KitSileya]

92. Tho' everything in me screams against it,

I cannot in good conscience condemn retaliation, on or off American soil, by the Iranians if the US attacks them, other than as a general condemnation of any violence. There, you have it. I believe in the concept of self defense, and any nation the US wages war on unprovoked has the right to strike back, regardless of whether the American government tries to paper over the cracks in the wall of their reasoning by pointing out broken UN sanctions and non-proliferation treaties.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

103. I have to agree with you there, although I think some type of

pacifism is the only chance we have to keep us from exterminating ourselves, I by the same token can't except the idea of letting another country bomb you. But, where does the cycle end?

[KitSileya]

162. The cycle ends with a powerful, neutral UN

working for the benefit of all the nations in the world, not just the US and Russia, and with an International Criminal Court that can put on trial all war criminals, including the President of the US. In other words, we can make the world a place of law, where international disputes have other ways of resolving themselves than thru war, and where those who injure other nations can be punished regardless of whether they are protected by their own states, be those states Pakistan, Bosnia, Zimbabwe or the US.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

175. And in theory that sounds great, but we are still left we the problem

of how do we implement it?

[KitSileya]

183. By breaking the back of the US. n/t

[Freedom_from_Chains]

188. Well yeah, that would be one good place to start. n/t

[dunn]

85. We wont get fooled again. That's the last line from Fahrenheit 911. n/t

[alfredo]

35. bush has to wait for a lame-duck congress. There will not be a

political price to pay for the ones that lost in Nov, and the others have two years to reposition themselves. When the Democrats take over, they are stuck in a hot war, and a lot of really bad choices to make. It will also make it more difficult for them to investigate and impeach bush. Let's face it, war with Iran would be a national emergency.

[knight_of_the_star]

157. No he doesn't

He knows the GOP is fucked in Congress, he doesn't need to ask Congress to shoot at Iran, although hopefully the military refuses to obey such a boneheaded order.

[alfredo]

173. That's right. I forgot that he has interpreted the authorization

bill of 2002 as giving him total license to wage war anywhere or anytime as long as he says it is part of "the war on terror."

[knight_of_the_star]

180. He doesn't even need that

The War Powers Act gives him the authority to start a shooting war and all he has to do is write a letter to congress about it in the next 48 hours.

[alfredo]

182. The neo cons like forcing the issue. They cripple the economy

forcing us to make some choices we would not have had to make before they took the throne.

[ddeclue]

211. Job One has changed..

Ford used to say Quality was Job One..

The new Democratic Congress would make it Job One to fire Herr Bush and company.

Doug D.
Orlando FL

[Tellurian]

7. And what would you do if you were the Pres of Iran?

Knowing, the leader of the (so called) Free World is planning a preemptive strike
on your country, possibly sending in assassins to kill you, and topple your government
with a military takeover?

[razors edge]

20. get a gun.

[Tellurian]

65. Thanks, for the response. n/m

[knight_of_the_star]

158. Borrow a nuke

Or turn of the oil spigot barring that.

[windbreeze]

91. I'd fight back...and

I'd call in my good friends Russia/China...in short..it would be the start of the third WW I guess...cause I sure wouldn't sit there and let him get away with it...
wb

[Auntie Bush]

212. I'd commit suicide after I fired off all my nuclear bombs that

I had hidden in my cellar. I wouldn't want to hang around and see the mess. What else could I do? :shrug: Wait for the black ops to get me?

[RC]

10. Or worse, starting a another war before the election

so they can set the election aside because we are at war.

It is time we take our country back before we do not have a country to take back.

If we can't take a (Make that 2) third world country from a bunch of splintered, disorganized civilians, how the hell do those bozos expect to do any better against a country that has a well trained, well equipped military?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

9. O.K, I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on the party but,

how do we know this isn't a routine rotation here?

[RC]

13. Elections are coming, that's why.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

14. That doesn't qualify as proof positive, just opinion. n/t

[No Exit]

26. I heard they're going just to keep tabs on Hormuz because if sanctions

were declared against Iran, Iran might retaliate by blockading the Straits of Hormuz, and said blockade would bottleneck up a lot of oil.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

28. Yes I have heard that also and it does seem rational

To say that we are defiantly going to war just because of ship movements like this is a tough case to make. We rotate ships and fleets all over the world all of the time. I just need more evidence than this to make the conclusion that the war is on.

[Stand and Fight]

112. Thank God -- a voice of reason!

It is unwise to jump to conclusions when the only actions being taken are actions that have regularly been taken in the past. Cooler heads will prevail. Hotheads -- on either the Left or Right -- will be our undoing. The fact that DU is very much acting like the "hornet's nest" causes me great concern. Can't people remember how often these so called stories have failed to bare fruit?

[ddeclue]

201. I think they'll wait until our navy ships get in first...

[Shipwack]

51. True, it could be a normal rotation...

Casual research (I don't have time for more right now) doesn't show us as having anything major in either the Northern, Central, or Southern Arabian Gulf at the moment

If it is a normal rotation, it would have been planned out a few months in advance. You don't move several ships on the spur of the moment without a goal.

Not saying this isn't planned, not saying it is a planned rotation... I agree that we don't have enough info right now.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

59. Yeah, my point is that this just isn't enough info to make

the kind of assessments that are being made. And I think the plan to attack Iran is a done deal, it is just a question of how and when. Personally though, I think we will end up having the Israeli's make the first strike.

[lumpy]

161. That has been my thought. Israel is itching

to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. They are living in fear of Iran. God, I hope this won't happen but Israel is adamant about attacking Iran.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

167. Well not to mention I think we are helping to support that fear

among them as we have an interest to do such. I have for some time thought it ultimately is not in Israels interest to be doing business with us. Like the adage goes, "you make a deal with the devil, you get what you bargained for."

[zanne]

69. All they need is the appearance of war.

Bush doesn't actually have to go to war with Iran before the elections. Even he's not that stupid. The appearance of war, though, and the terror that goes along with it, could very well be an election season ploy. If Americans are convinced that war with Iran is very close and inevitable and the Bush administration starts beating the drums of fear, they could keep control of congress. My hope is that we've all learned from six years of fear mongering that there's more bark than bite in this administration.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

80. Even he's not that stupid

Would you be willing to make bets on that? ;-)

[kaygore]

95. This was discussed in some responses to this on a Yahoogroup

I'll get the information if I can find it and post it for you.

I am in Virginia Beach and the Yahoogroup is an activist one for this area. One response that I read and remember is that the Navy is rushing the work on the Eisenhower to get it for for deployment.

I'll see if I can find the rest of the comments that suggest that this is NOT a simple rotation and post them for you.

I was going to address it in the original post and then thought the post would be too involved and felt that most readers would not know about rotations as you so. I should have taken the time and put all the information up there. Thank you for calling me on it!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

107. Great!!!!! I would appreciate that. n/t

[kaygore]

97. OK, part of it was in the article itself at the end

Second to the last paragraph:

One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.


I am going to check the Yahoogroup comments and see if there wasn't something more concrete. The group is panning a protest when the ships sail so if it is a simple rotation, I feel sorry for their families!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

109. Yeah thanks, I see your point but it still seems somewhat

vague. Not that I am saying this isn't what is happening I just would like to find more info.

[Doremus]

166. Here's one way to know.

From the Nation article:

One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States.

So let's keep our eye on the Enterprise. According to the article, the Enterprise website is so far mute about its return.

[napi21]

11. The problem is, it will take that fleet almost a month to get there.

My son was stationed on the Nimitz during Desert Storm. I know they sailed from Calif. but it's still a VERY LONG WAY to the Med!

I hove no idea what Shrub and Rummy are up to. I suppose it could be justthe pressure of psysical presence in the area. I'd hate to think he's soo stupid that he doesn't realize he just doesn't have the military force to attack a country the size and military attributes of Iran.

[Tellurian]

16. Maybe thats not what they're after..

The intimidation could be just enough for Iran to do a preemptive strike here.
The effect would be suspending the elections while the destruction is assessed and
sorted out...all their really interested in is a credible diversion and an excuse to declare
Marshall Law! Hell, they could create an attack here and blame it on the Iranians..just like
they did here for 9/11.

[napi21]

27. Iran CAN'T do a premptive strike HERE! You're dring the koolaid!

Itan doesn't have to ability to do that! Stop spreading the FEAR!

[Tellurian]

41. Napi...how many Iranians are living here?

Hundreds, thousands, millions?
How do you know they aren't prepared to do harm within our own country.

Iran doesn't need to strike from the ME.
They're here already just like we are.

And further, what would you do as an XPat and the situation were reversed?

[roody]

62. Cheney may be planning it as we speak.

[Truthiness Inspector]

84. I highly doubt that will happen

I know a lot of Iranians, and not one of them likes the Iranian government. They are happy to be here in the U.S. and to suggest they would take up arms against the U.S. is actually very insulting. (I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, however, just pointing it out.)

[Stand and Fight]

113. Good night!

Step away from the Kool-Fear-Aid....

Jesus... This remind sme of that Twilight Zone episode about the people on Maple Street who are convinced of an impending alien invasion... :wtf:

[kineneb]

148. wrong bunch

from personal knowledge, I would say that most of the Iranians who are in the US are citizens, and probably voted for BushCo. Most of them are from the upper class and worked for the Shah's regime. I doubt they would do anything to harm the US... many fled the Revolution because had they stayed, they would have been imprisoned or executed.

[ddeclue]

202. Oh give us all a break..these people are the Shah's exiles..

The vast majority left because they didn't like the Islamic gov't that took over...they aren't interested in harming us so give it a rest will'ya.

Doug D.

[fuzzyball]

37. I think your hypothesis holds a lot of water...n/t

[Tellurian]

42. Thanx , Fuzzyball..

It just goes to show you how the general public are so naive
and hamstrung intellectually when it comes to Republican politics.

[Stand and Fight]

114. That's nonsense..

This has nothing to do with naivety. It has to do with people acting on their FEAR. What you are putting forward is nothing less than fear and disgusting "what-if" scenarios with no basis in reality. It is best to wait for more evidence before jumping to conclusions.

[ddeclue]

208. Tellurian=Republican shill..

Come on...get real... Iran is NOT going to give Bush any excuse to attack them, he's going to have to invent it, just like Hitler did with Poland.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[driver8]

39. I was stationed on the Eisenhower and did a few Med cruises.

I don't remember it taking us a month to get there. A couple of weeks, maybe...

[napi21]

67. Maybe it takes less time from the east coast. I know it took the Nimitz

amonth from Bremerton Wa. My inattention to Geography is showing when I say I don't know the route the fleettakes from our west coast v/s the route from our east.

[driver8]

125. Your son was in the same time that I was.

We were in the Med when Saddam invaded Kuwait. A couple of days later we went through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea.

I'm trying to think...I think the West Coast ships would go a different route than us. They must have come the opposite way that we did.

What did your son do on the Nimitz?

[napi21]

132. Oooo, he's going to kill me for not remembering the exact

names! I know he worked on the deck, and launched and recovered the birds. I remember he said he was an airdale. I THINK that was for alerts though. His "job" was aircraft radios.

Istill rememberthe day he called me from Dubai(I think)and said "The next time you hear someonesay we don't know what we're doing, you tell them this! Last night more than 1/2 the ship was alseep or watching a movie when the alert sounded. In less than 5 minutes we had the birds IN THE AIR! In a little under 20 mins we got the call from the squadron, they get their target and were comin home!" He was sooo proud ofwhat they could do, quickly and accurately!

He's now in the Navy Reserves, and working a civilian A?C maintenance job on a Navy contract in Sicily.

[driver8]

141. It was pretty amazing to watch the evolutions on the flight deck.

I don't think I would have liked working up there.

I worked down in the engineering spaces running the nuclear power plants. We didn't see the daylight very often.

I remember one night when we first got into the Red Sea, we had bombs everywhere and planes being loaded. Our Captain came on later and said that he thought our planes were going in, but at the last moment there was a change of plans. Our ship was one of the first ones on station. It was a little tense for awhile.

It sounds like your son is doing well. Sicily? Not a bad place to be!

I am doing NOTHING related to what I did in the Navy...I like it that way.

[napi21]

146. As long as you have a job you like, that's all that's important.

My son is the General Manager of the Repair Facility now. The $$ is decent, he likes Sicily (most of the time ;o)), and he seems to like the job too.

[ddeclue]

209. If they wanted to they could be at the Suez canal in about 4 to 5 days.

At 30 knots they could cross the Atlantic at high speed and be at the Suez Canal in about 5 days and probably in the Gulf in about 8. A little math gives:

5x24x30=3600 nautical miles
8x24x30=5760 nautical miles.

It certainly wouldn't take a month unless they were dawdling...

Doug D.
Orlando FL

[driver8]

217. I remember it always took us a couple of weeks to get there, but much less

time when we were coming home. Someone once told me that if we were travelling too fast on our way to the Med, it could be considered an act of aggression. I never found out if this was true or not. Probably a rumor...

The Nimitz was on the west coast so they wouldn't travel the Atlantic -- they would travel the Pacific Ocean. I have no idea how long it would take from the west coast to get to the Persian Gulf.

[Monkeyman]

17. K&R

[Captain Hilts]

18. Why? The French are willing to do it. nt

[welshTerrier2]

21. well, well, well ... the October surprise is a November surprise

Congressman McGovern's statement that "we have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war" would put the "Start the War with Iran" date right about the time of the November elections ... if you're doing the math, McGovern made this statement on 9/17 ... the seven weeks he's pointing out, or 49 days, would include 13 more days in September, 31 days in October, for a total of 44 days, and another 5 days in November for a total of 49 ...

that would make the "attack date" just two days before the November elections ... surprise, surprise, surprise ...

it's a good thing bush and rove would never play politics with something as serious as a war or this could be perceived by certain "cynical types" as, well, nothing more than a political ploy ... it's so nice to see the tyrant-in-chief abusing our military in this manner ...

[OzarkDem]

22. Right on schedule

The closer the "attack" is timed to Election Day, the less time to expose the Bush lies to justify it.

[Tellurian]

43. I guess it's alright with you for Bush to play

Chicken with your life. Are you cock sure Iran is going to stand still
for this insulting abuse? Are you prepared for an attack on our country?
If so, please tell me what I should do when the bombing starts here?

[welshTerrier2]

48. your response makes no sense to me

why are you saying that i think it's OK for bush to play chicken with my life ???

what bush is doing regarding Iran is INSANE ... war with Iran will be the final nail in the US empire's coffin even if we "win" the war and successfully topple the current Iranian government ... in the end, this is all about oil profits and the oil producing nations are growing increasingly hostile to the US while China, and other emerging economic powers, are building strong cooperative ties ...

i'm not sure what you think you saw in my post but perhaps you misunderstood it ...

to answer your question, if the bombing starts here, you should do everything in your power to hold every elected official responsible for failing to stop bush from attacking Iran ...

[Tellurian]

68. welshTerrier2..You've got it backwards..

Just to clarify my response to your first post here:

You said:

"it's a good thing bush and rove would never play politics with something as serious as a war or this could be perceived by certain "cynical types" as, well, nothing more than a political ploy ... it's so nice to see the tyrant-in-chief abusing our military in this manner" ...

Cynical Types? You mean people with "eyes wide shut"..or in denial, don't you? What president in the history of the US has ever used the threat of War as a political ploy before elections? (Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your post was laced with sarcasm.)

Has it occurred to you HOW IRAN WILL PERCEIVE a flotilla of warships loaded with Tomahawk missiles camped out on their doorstep? For instance, would Iran think our Navy was on a sightseeing vacation because they've been so overworked fighting in Iraq? Or another possibility, the President of Iran, might take it as a threat to his own National Security and feels threatened enough to unleash covert Iranians or sympathizers living in this country to teach Bush a lesson? And in doing so, cause the chaos needed to shut down any upcoming elections, till further notice.

Do you believe Bush has the right to use us as pawns in whatever scheme he has up his sleeve, as you say, a "political ploy" just before elections, cavalierly putting our lives on the line, because most people here think we are invincible because we are geographically, so far away from the Middle East?

In response to your second post:

You said:

"what bush is doing regarding Iran is INSANE ... war with Iran will be the final nail in the US empire's coffin even if we "win" the war and successfully topple the current Iranian government ... in the end, this is all about oil profits and the oil producing nations are growing increasingly hostile to the US while China, and other emerging economic powers, are building strong cooperative ties ..."

Wait, wait, wait...you're getting too far ahead of the game. You're not making allowances for present mitigating circumstances...If it comes to pass, we are attacked here because Bush has bullied a sovereign nation, who by consensus of opinion with many other countries rationalizes the US is not in command of the facts, and is falsely accusing them of making nuclear weapons much like our government did with Iraq. Which later we found out was all a LIE. Common sense tells you, they would be within their rights to defend and attack the aggressor, whether here or their own soil.

I agree with your final analysis, but you're looking too far into the future. I'm dealing with the present, the NOW..the next 6-7 weeks if you will. Bush is leaving our country totally unprotected while he's playing War games and tempting fate in the ME. Our Natl Guard is supposed to be here to defend against an attack or at least be first on the scene for catastrophic events; they're not..

Oh, hold my politicians accountable? Sure, if they survive and we have any kind of democracy left when it's all over..I'll tell them welsh Terrier2 said..;)


WT2

If in fact, your first post WAS said in total sarcasm, then you're ok in my book..

[welshTerrier2]

79. let's try this again ...

i'll even start from the very beginning and then we can see if we agree or disagree ... first of all, my first post was TOTALLY sarcastic ...

ignoring all of the above, here's what i think about bush, Iran, Democrats, elections, national security, et al ...

1. everything bush does he does to serve Big Oil and other mega-industries ... it's all about GREED and the power to fulfill it
2. the US, long before bush came to power, is an imperial empire ... our policies have had no respect for the sovereignty of other nations
3. bush's sabre-rattling towards Iran is totally political ... he is timing this for the November elections
4. Iranian nukes and terrorism are legitimate issues but bush is totally exploiting them
5. the war and occupation of Iraq should be ended immediately
6. Democrats are either complicit with US imperialism or are too cowardly to tell the American people the truth about it
7. if bush attacks Iran, the US will win a quick military "victory" but the war will never end and it will ultimately destroy the US
8. countries like China are building strong cooperative relationships with oil producing countries while the US is building hatred ... we will not be able to buy the oil we are so dependent on ...
9. US prestige in the world and our claim to the moral high ground are gone
10. the US, whether we bring home the National Guard or not, cannot defend itself from terrorist attacks but it seems very clear that 9/11 type attacks is not the method Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups are using to destroy the US ... they have successfully destroyed the bonds of the "coalition of the willing" and have put the full cost of Iraq on America's shoulders while isolating the US from the global community ... we, not they, have become the outlaws ...

those are the basics i see ... btw, in my first post, my reference to "cynical types" was not how i see things but how i believe the right wing sees things ...

above all, my greatest frustration is with elected Democrats ... they need to be speaking out NOW ... RIGHT NOW like TODAY !!!!! they cannot let bush go to war without specific approval from Congress ... unfortunately, bush will turn this into a Constitutional crises to "shake things up" right before the election ... he's trying to force the Democrats to take a strong stand so he can say they're soft on "terrorism" ... he'll say the Iranians are helping Iraqi insurgents kill our brave young fighting men in Iraq and that Democrats are "coddling Iran" ...

but Democrats cannot play politics with this issue ... they have to stand up to bush and force him to seek Congressional approval ... i believe this is the so called "October surprise" ... the republicans have been steadily losing ground ... they have to up the ante and roll the dice ... Americans become very patriotic when war is involved and they are likely to be much more supportive of the current administration than they would normally be ... but we cannot allow an attack on Iran to happen; it's not justified ... it will destroy Iran but it will also destroy the US ... and no president has the authority to start a war like that without Congressional approval ... Democrats, starting today, need to make that very, very, very clear to the American people ...

so, do we agree? disagree? a little of each?

[Tellurian]

136. Yes, I don't doubt a word you've said is accurate and True,

Which to say is linear thinking...not that theres anything wrong with that because we're in agreement, so lets just call it,
A GIVEN. What I'm interested in is the X-Factor. Something no one cares to address. The what ifs..

Doesn't good planning include a planB when things go radically wrong? A failsafe plan IF while everyone is concerned with what Bush is doing; the Iranians and Iraqis take it upon themselves to upstage Bush and show him up as George the Inferior, who is incapable of leading the FREE WORLD?

I doubt there is anyone here that can say unequivocally, we have nothing to fear, even though we're dealing with a country with military limitations.

The fact of the matter is, our country is in an extremely vulnerable position. But for the 9/11 attack, historically, there hasn't been an outright act of aggression that has seriously crippled the country's energy sources, our nationwide infrastructure, water purity or a bio-attack on a grand scale.


You may think my post is far and away, over the top..but...what if it turns out, it really isn't.

I understand, I may have left you speechless, which is ok, too!

"This Fiasco is turning out to be an "Every man for himself, moment.."

[welshTerrier2]

139. i don't think your post is over-the-top at all ...

from everything i've read, the country is still totally vulnerable to a terrorist attack ... bush has done NOTHING to tighten things up ...

and the possible attacks you mentioned on energy sources, infrastructure, water purity and bio systems are all very real risks ...

having said that, however, i do NOT believe the "headline grabber" kind of attack is all that likely anytime soon ... some of this is based on well-sourced information about a planned chemical attack inside the US that was ostensibly called off by Zawahiri ... the plans were all ready to go and yet he called off the attack ... there's been substantial speculation about why he did that ...

some of that speculation, actually most of it, has concluded that such attacks could help promote sympathy for the US and help the US rebuild at least some of its alliances ... the Al Qaeda strategy seems to be to ISOLATE the US from the global community ... look at the "coalition of the willing"; it's completely fallen apart ... look at the Spanish government that was voted out after the train bombing near Madrid ... look even at what's happening to Tony Blair now ... all of bush's little friends are being ousted ... and the cheese stands alone footing almost 100% of the bill for Iraq ... just as the Russians sucked Napoleon deeper and deeper into the frigid Russian winter, so is Al Qaeda suckering bush deeper and deeper into the Middle East ... and it is destroying our military; it is bankrupting our treasury; it has isolated us from our allies ... if it ain't broke, don't fix it ...

is another massive attack inside the US a very real possibility? you're damned straight it is ... but for now, i think the US is devouring itself with its own stupidity ... why would any enemy want to risk altering what's already going on?

[Tellurian]

164. excellent, thanks..

Your overview makes good sense. More than likely Bush assumes we are dealing with a primitive people.. when in fact, the decision makers are single minded, highly educated, well financed and dedicated to ridding the ME from the oppressors. The Democrats could learn a lesson here and fight with the fire and resolve necessary to do the same thing here. I'm amazed at times at their detachment from the general population who feel shame and embarrassment for our government's unbecoming barbaric behavior. What I don't understand is.. the people crave to hear words of hope..words of assurance our country is not lost to globalism and corporate domination.

Are the Democrats so entrenched, so mesmerized by the Republican agenda they are unable to break free and be their own selves?

[TheWatcher]

54. What makes YOU so sure that Iran would be stupid and suicidal

Enough to attack us first?

[Tellurian]

64. Do you have any inside information stating the contrary?

If you do, it would behoove you to share it with US.

[windbreeze]

93. damn it, Iran doesn't actually have to attack us....

It's all in the perception, perception, perception....remember Iraq? 9/11? remember how the two became synonymous in *'s speeches between 9/11/01 and 3/03???? He didn't make one speech that didn't connect the two repeatedly..so what did 65% or some such of the American people believe???? that Iraq was responsible/or complicit in the attack on 9/11...what did that do...??? It justified * invading Iraq...so consequently, Iran does NOT have to attack us...all that has to happen is for the American public to be led to believe they did...if there happens to be another attack on our soil, you can betchurass it will be Iran that did it...(and it won't matter who actually did it)

Didn't I read on Dem Under just yesterday an article that states, our military forces are surrounded by Iranian forces in Iraq??? that there are some 300,000 Iranians, compared to ours at half that number.....shouldn't that be a concern for us also?..IF we attack Iran...what happens to all our troops in Iraq...??

The guy who's running Iran is not stupid...by any stretch of the imagination and we better understand he's got us right where the, well, you know...in more ways than one...
windbreeze

[truebrit71]

73. They wouldn't have to, ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin?

..dead simple, say you're being attacked and then "defend" yourself....It has worked before...

[Lasher]

76. This is pretty much what I was thinking when I read the article

I am reminded of a chilling observation that was published some time ago at zFacts.com:

Bush's job approval rating gained 33% and 14% from declaring war on “terror” and war on Iraq. Capturing Saddam gave him another 6%. Killing Al-Zaqarwi seems to have helped. Verbal heroics for September 11 may help. He needs another approval-rating boost now more than ever, and he is talking of war with Iran. From past experience, it appears that two weeks before the November elections would be the most effective time for such an adventure.

http://zfacts.com/p/307.html

[Armstead]

23. That would be too transparently phony -- But it's worked in the past

My guiess is that t5he administration is hoping to whip up the "debate" over Iran before the election and box the democrats into a corner. Sending the fleet will just add to the "crisis" atmosphere they want to create.

The big question is whether they'll have the brass balls to actually do a little military action again this time. I doubt even they are that foolish.....But then again....

[hobbit709]

63. The "Polish radio station" incident

which gave Hitler the excuse to invade Poland.

[MasonJar]

24. We must stop this this time. Yjis "enough" is too much. This whole

cabal must be impeached....NOW. They are truly insane.

[OregonBlue]

25. Americans are such sheep. They will ratchet this up and challenge

Iran and make a whole lot of noise and the public will fall for it all over again. Look at how the media has reacted to Iran and Venezuela's criticisms of the Bush regime. They're all over it. It's an insult to the country, etc., etc., etc. This will unfortunately play well in Missouri and Indiana and Iowa. Rove is a smart guy. He knows how to pump up the masses and how to make them scared and patriotic!!

Huge transport planes flying over our house today. They are definately moving people and equipment. It's the real deal. Any bloggers in Tacoma, WA can tell if it's imminent. Always LOTS of air activity just before a strike.

[No Exit]

29. Sheep. Yes. Sheep-R-Us.

Even here. Even HERE, where I came to find people who had enough BRAINS to see through the constant propaganda. Here--there are idiots proclaiming stuff like "Ahmadinejad is not a good guy, even if he criticizes Bush... blah blah blah." These idiots have NEVER heard a word the man said except in translation--a translation made by the same paid media lackeys who work for... BUSH.

I don't really know WHAT Ahmadinejad is like, and I don't currently know anyone who speaks his language enough to give me a trustworthy translation. But that doesn't mean I'm going to listen to media assholes handing me the same tired Bush propaganda over and over and over again.

[babylonsister]

30. Even here. Start a thread to wake people up! nt

[pampango]

165. Not another "sheeple" accusation

I bothers me when I see posters refer to voters as "sheeple" or "stupid lumps". I have heard Republicans refer to Democratic voters as uneducated idiots.

My guess is that the US has a bell curve distribution of intelligence and gullibility, as does any other country. My hope is that we would either figure out a strategy for appealing to the uninformed or educate them on the issues we consider important. Let us not call the electorate names when the other side successfully appeals to or "educates" them.

It strikes me as elitist to for them to call our voters "uneducated idiots" or us to call their voters "sheeple." For our democracy to work everyone's vote has to count the same, not just those who are more informed and " with the program."

AND what if Gore or Kerry were the president now and was trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear power/weapons (maybe everything would be different and Iran wouldn't want to, but what if). The Republicans were touting Ahmadinejad. Wouldn't we be pointing out all of his idiotic statements, religious intolerance, and support for Sharia law as reasons to oppose him?

[fuzzyball]

38. The phantom jets were very active today over SW Wash state...n/t

[Auntie Bush]

31. I really don't think bush* will attack Iran (yet). All he has to do is

threaten or make the American people think he will. Then he'll have plenty of opportunity to declare Dems soft on terrorism and unpatriotic if they reject Bush's plans. It will be just before the election and we will not be able to look strong on defense if we object. It will muzzle the Dems...just like it did after 911.

The best thing about Rove's evil plan is it keeps the talk/news all about possible war with Iran...should we or shouldn't we...are we...or aren't we going to invade? There will be NO talk about the election and Dems vs. Rethugs. No talk of the horror going on in Iraq and that's his goal. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[Tellurian]

44. I don't get it...

Everyone is worried about what and why Bush is doing what he's doing.
Meanwhile, Iran is ramping up to defend itself. How many Iranians are
living in this country. Do you actually think the distance between
countries is making you feel safe?
Are you prepared to be attacked from within our own country?

[TheWatcher]

55. Yes, we must bomb them over there becuase you are worried

About them already being here.

Millions of Iranians already in our country.

All them ragheads must SURELY be terrorists.

You're right.

Dear Leader should Turn them all into Green Glass so your American Idol will go on safely uninterrupted.

:sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

72. I'm not worried about them being here

I'm stating this is a country of cultural diversity and how I would feel if
I was living in a foreign country that is threatening to attack my native country.
I can assure you, I would be very upset and angry.

I believe most sane people want to live in Peace and take care of the only planet
we have to live on, eventually making it a better place than we found it.

Unfortunately, our government doesn't care about the people, they care about
corporate profits.

[Stand and Fight]

116. What is your motive?

All over this thread you are insinuating that Iranians who live here may attack us preemptively. You're practically screaming that it is almost a certainty. You asked someone up thread what reason have we to believe that they won't attack; I ask you, what reason have we to believe that they would. Your constant posts on this matter are taking on a decidedly paranoid feel. I suggest that perhaps you need to take a breather and question the reality behind your own thoughts. I hate to say it, but you're spouting as much idiotic fear as Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice when they said, "We don't want the next warning to come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Hell, why don't you just say, "We have to attack them there before they attack us here"? You've yet to suggest any meaningful solutions, and have only played the part of a fear-monger. Let-it-go.

ON EDIT: What do you suggest? Racial profiling perhaps? Rounding up all the Iranians and putting them in camps? :wtf:

[momzno1]

61. Iran doesn't really have to do the attacking

Bushco can set up a ship out their and attack it themselves and call it an Iranian strike.

[Tellurian]

74. Yep, adding INSULT to INJURY!

and justifying maiming and killing more people for $$$$.

[HuffleClaw]

40. so, they have three weeks to find a 'justification' for war?

and obtain congressional permission, though i suspect bush will claim he doesn't need it, or claim he already HAS permission more likely.

[Tellurian]

45. Hmm.. three weeks to think, think, think..

Maybe Iran will figure Bush is just a Buffoon grandstanding...and making fools of them
because it's election time in the good ole USA..
But they don't have our sense of humor, do they.

They think Bush is what this week?

[whistle]

46. Bush/Cheney have already made up their minds to commit yet

...another war crime act. Imperialists of America Inc. seem to be getting their way no matter what the outcry may be.

[EnviroBat]

56. How can we stop the funding of this?

Does anyone out there know of a way we could collectively stop funding the Federal government and prevent funding another mid-east disaster. Our income taxes are taken before we get our checks. Is there a way other than changing our W-2 to stop the money from flowing into the war machine. I believe if all of us did this, the message would be huge. The IRS would have way too much to handle trying to bring judgment's against all of us. This can't be allowed to happen again.

[Tab]

47. You son of a bitch.

Don't you dare.

Don't you FUCKING dare.

[Bosso 63]

52. Oh, they dare.

Shit- Never underestimate the stupidity of a male trying to prove he's a MAN. Being told not to do something makes these geriatric adolescents want to do it even more. They have the means, motive and opportunity, they will commit the crime. Bush and Co. have got their backs to the wall and they are scared, in the tunnel vision of panic, attack is their only option.

[rainy]

49. Hey Kay, See you Sunday! great post!

[kaygore]

94. I was off by a day--Can I come early and help?

I kept thinking that it was Saturday!!!!! I am so glad that I came back and read the responses to this post and found your comment! See you Sunday. Please let me know if I can come early to help.

[underpants]

60. ', bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles,'

oh it's The Nation.

[4_TN_TITANS]

70. It's necessary for the 'plan'

I firmly believe that * has taken us to Iraq and now Iran with the belief that someday we'll all sing his praise for securing the next generation's petroleum supply. We're just to dim to appreciate what he's doing for us in these early stages. :sarcasm:

We're not over there to spread 'freedom and democracy' - we're over there to score the next fix of black heroin.

[savemefromdumbya]

71. Does Congress know what our military is doing

Bush hasn't got authority

[truebrit71]

75. And that has stopped him before?

Not so much...

[savemefromdumbya]

77. things are really getting out of hand in this country

[katinmn]

86. ** Urgent Letter from Dennis Kucinich re US War vs. Iran **

Urgent Letter from Dennis Kucinich
about Bush Administration Plans for a US War vs. Iran

Dear Friends,

The Bush Administration is preparing for war against Iran, using an almost
identical drumbeat of weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, alleged
links to Al Queda, and even linking Iran with a future 911.

In the past few months reports have been published in Newsweek, ABC News
and GQ Magazine that indicate the US is recruiting members of paramilitary
groups to destabilize Iran through violence. The New Yorker magazine and
the Guardian have written that US has already deployed military inside
Iran. The latest issue of Time writes of plans for a naval blockade of
Iran at the Port of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world?s oil supply
passes. Other news reports have claimed that an air strike, using a
variety of bombs including bunker busters to be dropped on over 1,000
targets, including nuclear facilities. This could obviously result in a
great long term humanitarian and environmental disaster.

Earlier this year, I demanded congressional hearings on Iran and was able
to secure the promise of a classified briefing from the Department of
Defense, the State Department and the CIA. When the briefing was held, the
Department of Defense and the State Department refused to show and are
continuing to block any congressional inquiry into plans to attack Iran.

Just this past week, the International Atomic Energy Agency called
"erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated" statements relating to Iran's
nuclear program which came from a staff report of the House Intelligence
committee. Other intelligence officials have claimed over a dozen
distortions in the report which, among other things, said Iran is
producing weapons grade uranium. The Washington Post wrote: "The IAEA
called that 'incorrect' noting that weapons grade uranium is enriched to a
level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5% under IAEA
monitoring."

I have demanded that the Government Oversight subcommittee on National
Security and International Relations, of which I am the ranking Democrat,
hold hearings to determine how in the world the Director of National
Intelligence, John Negroponte, viewed the report without correcting the
obvious inaccuracies before it was published. Once again a case for war is
being built on lies.

You will recall that four and a half years ago I warned this nation about
the deception behind the build up to war against Iraq. Everything I said
then turned out to be 100% right. I led 125 Democrats in opposing the Iraq
war resolution in March of 2003. The very same people who brought us Iraq
in 2003 are getting ready to bring us a war against Iran.

With your help, I will lead the way to challenge the Bush Administration?s
march to war against Iran. Please support my campaign for re-election with
a generous donation to help continue my work in the Congress. The plan to
attack Iran, on its face, threatens the safety of every US soldier serving
in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the countless Iranian lives at risk
and the threat to world peace and environmental catastrophes.

With your support, I intend to continue to insist upon:

(1) Direct negotiations with Iran.
(2) The US must guarantee Iran and the world community that it will not
attack Iran.
(3) Iran must open once again to international inspections of its nuclear
program.
(4) Iran must agree not to build nuclear weapons.

Many of you joined me three years ago as I ran for President to challenge
the deliberate lies about WMDs, Iraq and 911, Iraq and Al Queda and the
Niger "yellowcake" claims which put us onto the path of an unnecessary,
illegal, costly war in Iraq. The Iraq war has caused greater instability
and violence in the world community. In the meantime, our government has
used the oxymoronic war on terror to trample our Constitution, rip up the
Bill of Rights and rule by fear.

Please join with me as we continue our efforts for the end of fear and the
beginning of hope, for international dialogue, for cooperation and for
peace.

Thank you,
Dennis

Please visit our website at www.kucinich.us for details on Elizabeth and
my recent peace building mission to the Middle East, the Message from
Qana, the message of compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Please support Dennis's work by making a contribution at
http://www.kucinich.us/contribute, and by forwarding this message widely.

Join the conversations on our forum.

[lumpy]

174. My thanks for posting this letter from Kucinich

He speaks the truth. The stance that the administration has taken regarding Iran certainly indicates that the plans to attack Iran is in the works. Planning for possible war is not unusual with any administration and Bush's administration appears to use only war to solve US economic and political problems.

[salib]

87. A few strategically fired missles and we could lose those ships

This has cluster-F**k written ALL over it.

[Imagevision]

96. Would Bush bomb more civilians this time for power grab election? you

Bet!

[Imagevision]

105. Doesn't Bush have to get approval from the senate before he bombs whoever?

which is impossible before November election, but he will succeed in raising the fear factor perhaps?

[Sam Odom]

117. No

But I call this bullshit

[Stand and Fight]

118. No... Can I say...

Richard M. Nixon?

[create.peace]

226. no country specified in original AUMF

The weasel-worded 2001 AUMF

is mighty broad in scope. It doesn't name any one country, eg, Afghanistan. It's limited only to what he determines, as stated in Sec. 2(a).
That day, the Congress surrendered on a silver platter their war-declaration powers AND their souls to the BFEE, as Sen. Byrd pointed out.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[sarcasmo]

111. I knew it this is Roves surprise for October. These fools are stupid

enough to attack Iran less than two months before a major election. Look out west coast this is the perfect time for our country to be invaded. Kick and Nom for the sure stupidity of these Idiots.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

213. Invaded by whom?

No country in the world has that kind of power projection ability to operate direct from their homeland, even the U.S. All invasions of that magnitude require a forward assembly base, and a huge sealift ability, and a strong naval air arm. No invasion has ever succeeded in the face of hostile land based air superiority.

Only the US has that kind of strength and even then we have always needed a forward base.

[Imagevision]

120. To bomb Iran? will it be before November elections?

[SOS]

225. Seymour Hirsh

has said that the neocon maniacs are planning the war for after the election.
He seems to know what's up.

[lovuian]

122. Its the New World order and it won't be stopped

Bush and Cheney have to do this to kep out of jail

The FBI CIA Military Supreme court and Congress

have let the American people down

Corporatism is trying to take over the world one nation at a time...

[slackmaster]

123. I call bullshit

Feel free to remind me of this post in the event we bomb Iran.

ETA make that "if we bomb Iran before the November election."

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. I agree

This is nonsense, and the more DUers I see running around hysterical over this, the more I worry for the intellectual level of this board.

[Sam Odom]

144. "intellectual level of this board"

I had my doubts when I 1st signed up too. But I think there are a ton of young (19&Under) people on here and they can be, as I was, very zealous and quick to respond.

[Roland99]

124. Quite the "October Surprise"

[and-justice-for-all]

130. Warmongering Facist BASTARDS!!!! I HATE THE GOP!!!!

[McCamy Taylor]

135. Oct 21. Sounds like election planning to me.

[lumpy]

177. IMHO it is more than election planning. The cabal,

PNAC, initiated by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, those behind the installation of the Bush puppet have long range plans to forward their agenda. The Bushco power structure is such that Bush might possibly declare premptive war without consent of Congress. Everyone should investigate PNAC, the people who have managed to gain power in our government.

[FighttheFuture]

145. Well, maybe they will shoot down another Iranian Airliner!

I am so disgusted with my country right now. It has been stolen and there are still way too many stupid, ignorant fucktards running around!

I am doubtful if America will survive this century, but I really hope its legacy, as a nation founded on liberal ideas, does.

[ddeclue]

210. Now that would be incredibly stupid...

[chat_noir]

151. look at the sign

[lumpy]

163. If Israel makes the first move then we are in for it.

It wouldn't be surprising if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. If Iran should retaliate, the US would be obligated to join the fray against Iran. This could very well be a dangerous and foolhardy plan to subdue Iran. I read that Iran might be considering discarding their plan to go forward in enriching uranium. Maybe, hopefully, that will be the 'diplomatic' solution. The deployment of the US armada into the Gulf might be the way of convincing Iran to halt it's nuclear enrichment program. Bushco has no problem playing with fire, but so does Iran.....

[ddeclue]

204. I already knew that but still WHO is THEY in your previous post?

Bush or Iran?

and were you referring to the actual attack or to the election?

Still confused...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[AJ9000]

220. hey dd Q for you:

1. Do you think the * admin would really like to attack Iran, or is this more likely pre-election sabre rattling without a real desire to attack?

2. If attack, do you think they would prefer the actual hostilities before, or after the 06 elections?

3. What are the chances they would use nukes of any kind on Iran?

[GETPLANING]

205. It's the October Surprise

They will provoke Iran into sinking American ships with their sophisticated anti-ship missile systems, then use it as an excuse for a nuclear strike. Mark my words. Sacrificing a few more Americans doesn't mean a thing to these people. It's not THEIR kids getting blown to bits.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

214. Didn't we go through all of this rumor/speculating a few months ago?

IIRC, then all the posting was about a carrier going to the Indian Ocean? It turned out to be a routine rotation.

Then there was the flap about a large exercise in the Pacific, in the area around Guam. Some people here thought that Guam was close to Iran. The exercise ended on schedule, and nothing happened.

Here we go again.

[woodsgirl]

222. Bush has

never won an election and has been in full dictator mode since
day one. The cabal no longer has OUR approval or even cares.
Bush is ruining the republican party, the military and the
world. The only problem I have with Hugo Chavez's speech at
the UN is that I don't believe in the devil. But for those who
do, he comes as close as a human being can.Bush works for big
oil and himself. What are the lawmakers so afraid of? Or do
they work for big oil too/corporations? I think the senate
race in Maine is a good indicator. When a popular repub.
senator is dropping fast in the polls and the dem. opposition
gets no money to put a candidate in who will work for the
people. It's telling. Esp. when it is so important to win both
houses. Rahm Emmanuel at work for big oil.Let's get the right
wing out of the democratic party fast.  

[OldSiouxWarrior]

224. What does that have to do with the OP?

The OP was speculating that because some US Naval ships were sailing, that war was imminent. I pointed out that this kind of speculation has happened before on DU. Your answer had nothing to do with that.

[Telly Savalas]

223. This shit has been going on since the last election.

Child poverty, healthcare, and Iraq are so fucking boring. It's much more fun to play Chicken Little with the Iran situation.

Maybe after the mid-term elections, Iran prophecies will go out of style and people will start warning us of an invasion of Mexico.