Something on the wind?

[_dynamicdems]

I'm not sure how to explain this, but it "feels" like something is about to happen. It is like that feeling you get just before a storm, when everything suddenly becomes very still and it feels as though the oxygen is being sucked out of the atmosphere. Does anyone else feel this?

[JanusAscending]

1. Yes, I've been feeling it for a while.

Can't explain it, hope it's for the good and not the alternative!! I feel like TRUTH is going to finally see the light of day, and bring us all out of the darkness! DC

[_dynamicdems]

9. I truly hope you are right.

It does feel like we have been wandering in darkness. I'm worried though. I'm afraid of what might come before the dawn.

[TayTay]

2. I hope it's good.

I have all these depressing feelings about Iran and what the Bushies are going to do there. I hope the threat of them taking pre-emptive action is stopped, but that will take a massive effort. We shall see.

[rox63]

3. I'm also worried about what they may already be doing in Iran

That the MSM isn't telling us about.

[whometense]

4. Or that even the MSM doesn't

know about. I'm worried too.

[Island Blue]

5. What worries me is that *

seems to loose touch with reality more and more every day. I know we all get a big chuckle out of his inability to answer even a simple question (as that great philosopher Jimmy Buffett once said, "If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane."), but his speech and reasoning skills seem to have gone downhill even since '04. Whatever it is that goes on in that tiny little head of his, it's pretty damn scary. It frightens me to think that he might truly have a Messianic complex.

[_dynamicdems]

10. Everything that Bush says or claims to believe is the exact opposite of

his actions. If he has a Messianic complex, is is not the message of the God of light and love that he brings, but that of the "father of lies." Today, Easter, is seems clearer to me than ever before what is the nature of evil. It is not about God verses Satan but it about the evil that dwells in the human soul disguised as goodness and righteousness.

We believe George W. Bush is an incompetent, bumbling fool and perhaps, a coward. We do not question his motives because he claims to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. But what else would a disciple of the "father of lies" claim?

Everything this man does uses one principle: take what is best and good about people and about what they believe and turn it against them. He did this with the Swiftboating of a war veteran. He did this with our belief in God. He turned a nation that is primarily Christian into the antithesis of what Christianity is about.

He might be madder than a hatter, but George W. Bush is no Christian any more than he is a war veteran. He is a war monger and he is pure, unadulterated evil.

I fear this man most when he's low in the opinion polls. We might be riding high right now because opinion has, at long last, turned our way, but it is now when we have to be most vigilant. Beware the fury of a cornered beast.

The dropping poll numbers make me shudder at what the madman might do to reclaim his glory. Maybe what I am feeling is the whisper of my own inner voice telling me to beware because we are long overdue.

[ginnyinWI]

12. Lawrence O'Donnell

on McLaughlin group says there is zero chance that we are going to do anything militarily against Iran. Seemed pretty sure of it. Hope he's right.

[beachmom]

14. That's what David Brooks said on Jim Lehrer, too.

He was just downright blase about Iran. He made it seem like the * administration hasn't even determined if what Iran just did really IS "unacceptable"; that they actually will just let it go. This is in exact contrast to Hersh's piece.

I hate to say it, but have we considered that the New Yorker article is inaccurate, and that we're worried about nothing?

I mean, in the run up to the war in Iraq, they were pretty damned clear that they wanted to go in (yeah, yeah, they said peace, but then they would fill you with fear about "mushroom shape clouds"). I don't feel like the rhetoric is like that this time.

Of course, if their plan is to just bomb Iran, then they could just surprise us with it. The invasion of Iraq could NOT have been hidden; I suppose military action against Iran could be. But we all know it is ill advised and, in the end, will not deprive Iran of the bomb.

In summary, ALL of the MSM says no war with Iran. Are they all wrong?

In regards to Iran itself, that president actually IS beginning to sound like Adolf Hitler, using the same word -- annihliation of Israel. But does he actually hold the power, or do the Mullahs? I think he is increasingly unpopular in Iran -- I just don't see the Iranian people agreeing with him with such warlike and hateful talk.

[ProSense]

15. I'd rather

err on the side of the discussion going on in public as it is, than trust the pundits. Not every MSM report is saying Bush has no plans. In fact, a report came out today stating Blair's opposition to an Iran strike. I posted a link to an article in which Feinstein states that some in the administration are trying to figure how a nuclear strike could work. Who knows what the real story is? Whatever it is, better that the debate keeps it in focus. This may avert a surprise.

[ProSense]

16. Adding this op-ed co-authored by Richard Clarke

Op-Ed ContributorsBombs That Would Backfire By RICHARD CLARKE and STEVEN SIMON
Published: April 16, 2006

WHITE HOUSE spokesmen have played down press reports that the Pentagon has accelerated planning to bomb Iran. We would like to believe that the administration is not intent on starting another war, because a conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to our interests than the current struggle in Iraq has been. A brief look at history shows why.

Reports by the journalist Seymour Hersh and others suggest that the United States is contemplating bombing a dozen or more nuclear sites, many of them buried, around Iran. In the event, scores of air bases, radar installations and land missiles would also be hit to suppress air defenses. Navy bases and coastal missile sites would be struck to prevent Iranian retaliation against the American fleet and Persian Gulf shipping. Iran's long-range missile installations could also be targets of the initial American air campaign.

Snip...

So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.

The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was "no war plan on my desk" despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16clarke.html?ex=1302840000&en=bde4bd3288470a1a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[ProSense]

7. I keep asking myself:

the idiot can't be completely crazy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2572600&mesg_id=2572600

[_dynamicdems]

11. He's crazy and he's evil. He is our Caligula and our Nero combined. n/t

[ginnyinWI]

13. That reminds me:

John Paul II thought Bush was the anti-Christ!

[ProSense]

17. Anyone know why

AQ Khan is back in the news?

Chronology: A.Q. Khan
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: April 16, 2006
Some key events in A.Q. Khan's life, professional career and illegal nuclear dealings.

1989: Iran is suspected of receiving its first centrifuge assemblies and components around this time. The shipped components are likely older P-1 centrifuge components that Khan no longer has use for in Pakistan. Through 1995, Khan is reported to have shipped over 2000 components and sub-assemblies for P-1, and later P-2, centrifuges to Iran.

1990: An Iraqi memo, found during inspections in 1995, indicates that Khan may have offered significant nuclear assistance to Iraq in late 1990. He offered to sell Iraq a nuclear bomb design and guarantee material support from Western Europe for a uranium enrichment program. However, Iraq is believed to have turned down the offer, suspecting it to be a sting and no known follow-ups were made after the 1991 Gulf War.

1994 or 1995: More advanced components for P-2 centrifuges are suspected to have arrived in Iran. B.S.A. Tahir, a Sri Lankan business man and Khan's chief lieutenant, told Malaysian police that Iran paid approximately $3 million for these centrifuge parts.

Mid 1990s:
-- Khan starts travel to North Korea where he receives technical assistance for the development of the Ghauri missile, an adaptation of the North Korean No Dong design. Khan makes at least 13 visits before his public confession in 2004 and is suspected of arranging a barter deal to exchange nuclear and missile technologies, though the details of any nuclear transfers remain unknown.
-- Khan is suspected to have met with a top Syrian official in Beirut to offer assistance with a centrifuge enrichment facility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/world/asia/16chron-khan.html

[TayTay]

18. He ran that nuclear secrets bazaar back in the 80's - 90's

The theory goes that some of the nuclear secrets and technology he peddled wound up in the hands of the Iranians.

You can never get away from Iran-Contra, weapons for hostages, drug-running evils of the BFEE. AQ Khan and his extremely dangerous network was never fully explored and we don't know who got all that nuclear info and material. But Iran, it is safe to assume, got some of it. (Cough-BCCI-cough)

[ProSense]

19. Yes, so

how about a little focus on the obvious? (Cough-BCCI-cough) ;-)

[beachmom]

20. Wasn't he in the New Yorker piece?

Unfortunately, he was considered a "suggestible" witness, meaning he'll just tell you whatever you want to hear. I think he probably helped the Iranians, too, but how? I doubt he'll tell the straight truth.

So . . . any way we can pin this on *? Wasn't the * family involved with BCCI? Since many of the characters in the * administration are responsible for Saddam Hussein and arming him, what are the chances that yet more characters (and maybe some of the same ones) are responsible for strengthening the Iranians now? I'd love to see an article that strings it all together. No tin foil hat stuff though. Just the facts.

[TayTay]

21. Well, even beyond that, the Russians are arming Iran

There was a story in the papers last week that Putin authorized the sale of 22 new and powerful missiles to Iran. (These are defensive weapons that are designed to take out aircraft and such.) Sigh!

Remember when * said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his heart. (Note to Bush: Ewwwwwh! That doesn't even read well, never mind work as spoken cowboy speech.) Ahm, looks like Bush is about as good a judge of 'hearts' as he is of wars.

[beachmom]

22. That doesn't help us in regards to the U.N.

That merely emboldens the bushies to bypass the U.N. and unilaterally attack. If Russia is going to veto everything. Sigh. What are we going to do about Iran? And what are we going to do about *? The world looks more insane every day.

[karynnj]

23. I noticed the chronology totally ignores that

the BCCI report did list Khan and Pakistan as as the first item needing further investigation. The first time I ever read that anyone though Khan needed to be investigated as early as the early 1990s was when BLM posted Kerry's list of things that still needed to be done.

His number one item:
"1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report was from December, 1992. Blum and Kerry gave the information to Morgenthau in late 1989 after the Justice Department ignored it in March 1989. Looking at the NYT timeline, it's infuriating to think what could have happened if the Justice Department aggressively pursued this in 1989.

[babylonsister]

6. It could be that huge vacuum in Congress sucking the air out of

issues that need to be addressed. :shrug:

[BlueIris]

8. Yep. But don't worry; while some of it is going to suck, (economy)

the net result (end of Bush admin--by August at the latest) benefits progressives and Democrats. I mean, I won't lie, for those who haven't been following certain developments monitored on a few famous, but "fringe" blogs, there will be a great deal of shock and dismay to contend with. Some of you in this forum know what I'm talking about, because you follow the markets and you have the same suspicious fears about the state of the Treasury that I do. But I'm sure you also suspect that a couple of our government's more intelligent servants (thanks, Senator!) are running around like mad trying to shore up the damage. That's not the only reason I think we'll pull through, but it's one of the most important.

[JanusAscending]

24. Hey dynamic dem,

Could this be IT??? By that I mean todays events, and the word out on GD that Fitz's Grand jury hearing testimony on the Valerie Plame case today? I pray this is IT !!!!!:woohoo: Love, DC

[ginnyinWI]

25. Best thing, by far, that could happen is if Rove gets fired.

Now that he's been kicked out of policy-making, he's going to go to smear-peddling full time through election day. For some reason, even knowing he's going to do it isn't enough, because half the people believe him anyway. Unless by some miracle enough people are now innoculated against him and his devices. That's what I want most for Fitzmas.

[_dynamicdems]

28. I want the @#$% behind bars. n/t

[_dynamicdems]

27. I hope so. I've been so caught up in JK's speech...I'm a bit behind. Any

updates on this?

[zann725]

26. The "something" may be that Kerry has chosen to "run" in '08? Kennedy

essentially said it was very likely on MTP yesterday with Russert...and also aluded to Kerry as seriously "considering" candidate from Mass. on "Larry King" the other night.

I respect Kennedy, and his knowledge, and experience of years of Senate service...and he spoke "glowingly"....and with CERTAINTY when he referred to JK's possible run in '08. Essentially he's been JK's mentor for years, and clearly he "knows" his candidate...and feels...more than ever...the Man and the "time" is right.

[_dynamicdems]

29. We need him. Nobody else is qualified to handle the job at this

point in time. There are others out there who are good people and they are on the right side of many progressive issues, but they just don't have the experience in government and in foreign policy that Senator Kerry has. I'm sorry, but in contrast the other potentials honestly don't measure up.