Shifting Targets-"They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk"-by Seymour M. Hersh

[kpete]

Shifting Targets
The Administration’s plan for Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
October 8, 2007 Text Size:

In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

....................

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

..............

“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”

more at:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

[Buzz Clik]

1. It's time to get real noisy, folks.

[NMDemDist2]

2. chimpie never listened before, I doubt he's gonna start now n/t

[Buzz Clik]

12. It's not the chimp who needs our attention.

It's time to get Medieval on our own. If Congress doesn't stand up against this NOW, they don't come back in 2009. Period. No exceptions.

[spag68]

36. YOU MAKE A MISTAKE

When you assume that 2009 will mean anything.

[bagrman]

66. U assume that the last 2 elections ment squat.

[H2O Man]

3. Very important article.

This is, of course, the consequence of the failure of congress to investigate the activities of the OVP/OSP, and to impeach Dick Cheney.

[lyonn]

20. Amen, what's left?

No one listens. Hell, it worked so well in 2002 why not repeat the plan. The masses seem to never get past page one when it comes to bush claiming we Must Attack. You see the talking heads daily discuss how Dreadful Iran is and that we are keeping All our options on the table. Oh how they lie. They seem to have only One Option on the table, bomb.

Starting impeachment Might slow their butts down, nothing else seems to matter. Cheney is a determined man and bush is heavily medicated, legal or illegal. Friday he made a speech and truly look and talked hammered. Some tv station was showing bush's comments from 2002 until now comparing his comments, approximately 4 speeches. It was obvious he is not with us.

[truedelphi]

49. At this point starting impeachment might speed them up.

Not that I care. I want impeachment anyway any "when" - those don't matter.

These people are criminals and to ignore thair wrong doing is criminal behavior of itself.

[yardwork]

50. IMPEACH DICK CHENEY NOW!

We have to get at least one of the madmen out of there.

[charlie]

4. "You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated"

Are there any humans left in DC? WTF kind of lament is that?

[annabanana]

24. He won't wait for '08. . . . They have to act now.

and yet. . .

"impeachment is off the table"

[robinlynne]

29. That is all they care about. ours too. (except the good ones)

[Kajsa]

5. This is very disturbing,kpete.

It's reminiscent of the prelude to
the war in Iraq.

;(

[HereSince1628]

6. Yet another story on Pentagon apocalyptic planning

This one has one peculiar note that attracts my belief.

Rather than do Iran in a BIG way, now they are talking about doing a down-sized version. That has exactly the same pitch as the planning for GW-2. Do it on the cheap, everything will work out.

Actually, it's seems like a long standing practice of Cheney the Great Camel. All he wants is to get his nose in the tent. Subsequent events, completely out of his control, would soon provide opportunity for total occupation.

[HereSince1628]

9. And back on page 4 there is the phrase about fast in and out

using the "fast movers" was one of Rumsfeld's favorite lines.

[Solly Mack]

7. K&R. Needs to be read

[alfredo]

8. A very nervous kick.

[mod mom]

10. We need to re-examine the '03 Iranian Proposal passed by Ney:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1943858

THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DOING THE SAME THING W IRAN THAT THEY DID W IRAQ. SHAME ON ALL DEMS WHO VOTED FOR THE KYL/LIEBERMAN AMMENDMENT INCLUDING HILLARY CLINTON!

[gratuitous]

11. Little Boots, bored with his old toy, now wants a new one

"But Sonny Boy, I just bought you Super Mega He-Man last week."

Now it's got Action Kick Power!

"We're here to buy groceries, and that's thirty-five dollars."

I want it, I Want It, I WANT IT!!!!

. . .

You see it in the stores every day.

[SoCalDem]

17. Our butthead-in-chief never had to clean up his own messes

so why would he start now? His ultimate goal is to create mass-chaos for the "next" president to clean up..

[Spazito]

13. Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter and others in the know have been

trying to raise the alarm on this as they did before the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Sadly, I think they will be ignored again.

The PNAC group are running out of time, the plan was to hit 7 countries in the Middle East over the bush term and, because Iraq wasn't the "cake-walk" they planned for, they have to expedite the plan to cover more than one of the other 7 countries.

Note the rhetoric about Syria has also increased lately.

Unless something major occurs, imo, the attacks, so-called limited, will occur and Congress gave the defacto go-ahead by passing the amendment they did.

Edited to add Wesley Clark's comments re the 7 countries:

CLARK: Well, not exactly a lie. But a theory about how to deal with terrorism. It was the “drain the swamp” theory that emerged after 9/11 and people talked about it. But before that, in 1991, I remember being in Secretary Wolfowitz’s office when he was the number three guy in the Pentagon.

And he said, yeah, the Gulf war, well, we didn’t get rid of Saddam, but what we did learn is we can use military power to clean up these old client states. We’ve got maybe five or ten years to clean them up, Syria, Iran, the rest of them, before the next superpower comes along.

I said, five or ten years? You mean, China and — the discussion sort of wandered off. But it was one of those nuggets you remember. And then I’m in the office with this senior general in the Pentagon, and he says, well, he says, sir, I just — this is after I’m retired. Sir, I just got this memo down from the office upstairs. He’s pointing upstairs. And they’re on the second floor, and the civilians are on the third floor.

And he says, seven countries. I said, is that classified? And he read the countries. I said, is that classified? Stop. He was going to show it to me. I said, don’t show that to me. I don’t want to see that. And so it wasn’t a plan. Maybe it was a think piece. Maybe it was a sort of notional concept, but what it was was the kind of indication of dialogue around this town in official circles, just like unofficial circles, that has poisoned the atmosphere and made it very difficult for this administration to achieve any success in the region.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/18/late-edition-wes-clark-talks-to-blitzer/#more-21506

[lyonn]

21. Recent article on DU about the Imperial Presidency,

wrong descriptive word, believe is was by John Dean describing how the new repubs beleive in total control. They do not believe the masses are capable of making decisions for themselves. Wish I had saved it. this story fits so well with all the warnings we are getting from the FEW that have the COURAGE to try to wake us up.

How do we stop them? Haven't read this article by Sy yet, but does he have an answer?

What's left, Impeachments proceeding, let the people know. This damn election cycle may kill us all in the end. The Dems appear to be afraid impeachment will hurt their chances in the election. I think the Cheney/bush bunch are counting on this. OK, a bit dramatic, I was really thinking of the ME and our troops in Iraq. They could be trapped. If we drop even one bomb on their country what will Iran do? Will they run to the negotiating table? Or, will the drop some of their rockets on the Green Zone, our ships. Gawd, is anyone paying attention?

[Auntie Bush]

44. Or Israel! They will retaliate, big time and we'll be obligated to

protect them. World War III ...here we come!

[doublethink]

14. Kick ......

:kick:

[tanyev]

15. I was reading a freeper thread in which they were expressing fears about the 08 election.

One person reassured everyone that GWB would launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran before the election at which point Americans would rally round the president and presumably come to their senses and vote Republican. Only one person cautioned that if that happened it might result in negative blowback.

[Faygo Kid]

35. I have fears about the 08 election, too - like whether it will take place

And if it does, how small the odds are that it will be an honest election. Rove has not been able to disenfranchise voters quickly enough. Therefore martial law becomes a more likely tactic to retain power, despite the considerable risks. Still, the Administration may gamble that its ability to shut down all but the Faux News/Rush Limbaugh cheerleader types may be enough to sustain a coup.

[bobthedrummer]

16. k&r

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

[BelgianMadCow]

18. Hersh is always worth reading but the article is over a year old

which you left nicely in, just wanted to highlight it.

[doublethink]

19. Um no ...... it's brand new dated for publication this Oct 8, 2007.

Peace.

[lyonn]

22. Just read full article

Just love the busies' rants that attacking the Iranians that are killing our soldiers will save troops lives - oh really? Iran does posses lots of rockets. It would be suicide, but....

Partial quote from article:

"And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq."

Edit:

Right, and what great minds got us in this pickle?

[BelgianMadCow]

23. My bad

and it was morning so no late-night excuse. Coffee must have stopped working or something.
I figured we were 2008. Yeah!

[KoKo]

32. Blitzer interviewed him this morning and seemed to say there's a New Article In New Yorker Mag?

He seemed to be saying that Sy's latest really WAS the Latest....:shrug:

[BelgianMadCow]

25. wow and this gem :

That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”

[Emit]

39. Yay! Just long enough for my 6 year old to be drafted ...

:mad:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

26. ...

Fuckers! :mad:

[stranger81]

27. I cannot believe this is going to happen AGAIN. k & r -- eom.

[stranger81]

28. I cannot believe this is going to happen AGAIN. k & r -- eom.

[LibertyorDeath]

30. China & Russia need to step up

and say We Don't Fucking think so.....

[Wiley50]

37. What Would Happen if Russia and China Each Sent 100 Fighter Jets To Patrol Over Iran?

I mean, it is their duty per Shanghai Defense Organization.

And it's the only other thing than impeachment that might stop it

[bleever]

31. Suck the air out of Cheney's room: impeach him now.

Right now.

[Cha]

33. The bushit Reign Of Terror is leaving

Iraq and going to Iran like they left Afghanistan for Iraq.

"They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”'

Everybody knows this from Iraq but hillary and her gang of dinos.

[Middle finga]

34. I wonder where do the EU stand on this, their leaders are probably

cowering in corner as usual. They wouldn't confront Hitler until it was too late now they're scared to confront Bush.

[ananda]

38. They're not moving much of anybody..

That's just a false meme put out there.

I don't think many people support attacks or war
of any kind anymore.

But.. Bushinc, the whore-media, big oil, and corporations might.

[Emit]

41. And "Bushinc, the whore-media, big oil, and corporations" is all it will take.

Do you think they need the people's support on this?

[paparush]

40. Dennis Kucinic may be our only hope...he's willing to introduce Articles of Impeachement for Cheney.

How can we say no to that? How can we not support that?

[TexasLawyer]

42. bomb first, ask questions later

another disastrous pre-emptive war.

<snip>

An Israeli official said, “Our main focus has been the Iranian nuclear facilities, not because other things aren’t important. We’ve worked on missile technology and terrorism, but we see the Iranian nuclear issue as one that cuts across everything.”

Iran, he added, does not need to develop an actual warhead to be a threat. “Our problems begin when they learn and master the nuclear fuel cycle and when they have the nuclear materials,” he said. There was, for example, the possibility of a “dirty bomb,” or of Iran’s passing materials to terrorist groups. “There is still time for diplomacy to have an impact, but not a lot,” the Israeli official said. “We believe the technological timetable is moving faster than the diplomatic timetable. And if diplomacy doesn’t work, as they say, all options are on the table.”

[Lasher]

59. "...we see the Iranian nuclear issue as one that cuts across everything."

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. - Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003

[creeksneakers2]

43. Its all seems so unreal

Bush openly calls for 100 years of war across the globe. Probably less than 15% of Americans support Bush's plan. But nobody talks about it, like its not really happening. Bush was reelected without any warning sounding about his insane designs.

Nobody wants to talk about what's really going on because it sounds so crazy that anybody, outside of the well informed, who heard about reality would think the messenger is crazy. "Left wing Internet kook fringe."

An attack on Iran would not be lethal without ground troops, which we don't have. Iran could respond with global terrorist attacks. I think about all the overreaction to terrorism and the crazy things we are doing to protect ourselves. But,the machinery that creates those protections makes sense if massive terrorist attacks are anticipated. Such would happen after an attack on Iran.

I've long been worried about fascism taking hold in America. People build walls against believing revelations that mankind can be so evil. They say the Nazis took power because good people saw and did nothing. I think Nazis were allowed to take control because good people couldn't believe what was happening.


I can only hope that a convincing insider will come forward and put a stop to this insanity before its too late.

[kineneb]

45. empire, meet Rubicon

"The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran."

I probably know more about Iran than anyone in the Gov., having lived there.

But do they ask me? No.

I predict the US military will have its ass handed to it if they attack Iran.

[defendandprotect]

46. Impeachment might have stopped this . . .. !!!

[lonestarnot]

48. Would have stopped this.

[Bluebear]

61. So sorry, that was "off the table". Which is a DISGRACE. nt

[mod mom]

47. Could it be possible that the military will realize the insanity especially after

being over-deployed, and say NO to Cheney?

[lyonn]

69. Could it be the military is in a cocoon and don't know

Their job is to "obey" not think. That's my thought. They train you to follow orders.

Will the Captains and/or Admirals refuse? Any attack most likely would heavily involve the Navy.

The grunts could be our only savior and they don't dare rebel. Imagine the peons in the military walking off the job? Why should we expect them to do what the masses at home won't. Sad huh?

[loudsue]

75. What really surprises me re: Cheney....

As many educated, patriotic, highly placed military generals as there are, who see the insanity of this administration, I'm surprised one of them hasn't asked one of his favorite snipers to take care of the insanity. That's what surprises me.

[lovuian]

51. this has always been the plan attack Iran and martial law

will occur after WWIII starts

I don't think Cheney plans on leaving the whitehouse folks

[necso]

52. It's important to realize

that an attack on Iran (and the related storyline: Iran is a threat; Iran is responsible for the situation in Iraq; Iran is helping the bad guys; etc) isn't just being marketed to the people; it's being marketed to the media, to Congress, to the military* -- and to anyone who might interfere with/influence such an action.

Neo-"conservatism" is effectively a mental illness (more precisely perhaps, neo-"conservatism" rationalizes, gives force to, certain proclivities to mental illness); and it appeals most strongly to, and is held-to most strongly by, those who are given to extremes of: egotism; the drive to dominate; narrow-mindedness; self-delusion; shallowness; willful ignorance/blindness; narcissism; feelings of superiority; the inability to recognize error; the unwillingness to be held accountable or to be limited/bound in any way; "messianic" self-image; amorality; childishness; "tough"-guy posturing; etc.

That is, neo-"conservatism" exacerbates the worst tendencies of people. (For example, by creating/propagating/strengthening a fearful, perturbed, paranoid, warlike state/course). And it's precisely the worst people who are most attracted to it. (These are very dark people; people who destroy, rape, torture, injure, kill, lie, manipulate, slander, steal, cheat, etc -- or have these things done -- without compunction, qualms, hesitation, forethought, remorse, reason or need (where this is even possible) .)

Nothing good can come of such a thing.

Moreover, any military attack on Iran will likely bring retaliation, escalation; and an easier-to-sell (so the neocons hope) "limited attack" will likely end-up creating the same sort of mess as a larger attack would. Indeed, after any attack on Iran, our military in Iraq could end up in great difficulties (which would suit the neocons just fine; they're aching to use nuclear weapons (the "big-one" they drool over), and this might give them an excuse).

And we already know the tools that will be used to set the groundwork for an attack: lies; manipulations; phony, distorted, exaggerated, confidence-inflated "intelligence"; threats/provocations; pretenses of diplomacy; etc.

It might be worthwhile for Congress to investigate the extent to which alleged Iranian infractions in Iraq have real counterparts in US actions in Iran (like arming/training/funding "insurgents".) (It's like the neocons to accuse some "adversary" (some target) of doing what the neocons are doing; indeed, this passes for "humor" among these creatures.)

*: "La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

...

There's no basis for confidence; they can rationalize any behavior.

Plus, they are obsessed with the "win"; the "triumph"; the "spectacle".

A very bad bet.

[defendandprotect]

53. Same pattern as was used with Iraq war . . .

Is there anything left of the United Nations --
They called Iraq an "illegal" war ---

[FedUp_Queer]

54. I hate like hell that I do...

but I hate these people. They really ghoulish, soulless, beings. Why in the HELL are American so pro-war???????

[McCamy Taylor]

55. They are setting up an Iranian Hostage Crisis 2007-8: Limited War-->All Out War

From the article:

A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.”

This might make sense if you are dealing with some backwater nation where the people fight with sticks and rocks, but it is a bullshit tactic when dealing with a country with a sophisticated military. These men and women are fodder . Why the hell is a draft dodger like Cheney making any military decision? Because the decision to send in small ground special ops forces is a political one.

There is evidence that the US (i.e the administration) conspired with Israel in advance of last summer's invasion of Lebanon. That means that the kidnapped soldiers were just an excuse. When Cheney says that he wants to send a small group of US forces into Iran, he is setting them up to get captured and become hostages.

Now that Congress has declared the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, Cheney can declare that the special forces were in Iran legally. If the Iranian leaders do not immediately turn over the blue eyed blond Jessica Lynch lookalike Private Fodder that Cheney has sent is, he can put her picture on FOX News and make a case for war, just like Israel's leaders made a case for the invasion of Lebanon.

The only thing that has been holding the Neo Cons back is the determination of the Pentagon commanders, a few journalists like Hersch and NBC. Congress has its head up its ass. If they would go ahead and impeach Cheney, we would not be on the brink of war. But no, instead they have to give him legal justification for sending his Private Fodder into Iran.

Once again, there is no logical reason for VP Cheney to make any military decisions about combat in Iran. Anything he insists upon must have a political motive. There is no reason for the White House to keep changing its reasons for invading Iran unless the reasons are all bogus and the truth is that it has already made up its mind to do it and is simply trying to find a way to get it done--like with Iraq.

What the hell is Congress doing? Do Democrats even understand the meaning of Congressional oversight?

[lyonn]

70. Interesting post

All the pieces to the puzzle are set-out quite well by you. Cheney/bush no doubt will not just decide to take out some nuke sites. It will be a Gulf of Tonkin type skull duggery, lying, deceiving, the public action where the Congress will stand around and say, Gee, what else can we do under these circumstances. Duhhhh

[DeepModem Mom]

56. K&R

[bjobotts]

57. I keep writing my Sen. STOP BUSH. cut funding & impeach before he attacks Iran

Bush sees it as attacking military leaders but it will be the mass murder of thousands of innocent Iranians just like it was in Iraq. Smart bombs my ass...thousands of civilians died. Bush/Cheney say not one word about the aftermath of such an action. They've learned nothing from Iraq. I email my Senator beggin her to cut the funding...to start impeaching Cheney...to not be a part of another mass murder.

Why can't they see what is getting ready to happen...why won't they find a way to stop the Bush regime. They just stand there with their thumbs up their asses watching this madman prepare to bomb another country. Do something while there is still time. Impeach the bastard...cut the war funding...because as soon as he gets it he will launch.

[Kaleko]

58. Fwiw: US is sticking to diplomacy on Iran, says UK envoy

· Outgoing ambassador dismisses sabre-rattling
· Negotiations can solve nuclear issue, he believes

by Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Monday October 1, 2007


The outgoing British ambassador to the United States, Sir David Manning, insists the US remains committed to the diplomatic route over Iran rather than contemplating air strikes, despite recent sabre-rattling from the White House.

Although Washington continues to hum with predictions of military action - one insider on Capitol Hill said there was a 50-50 chance of such a strike next year - Sir David said he had not heard anything from inside the US administration.



Read more: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2180742,00.html>

[lyonn]

71. The British govt. is on Bush/Cheney mental wave lengths

They were dumb enough to follow bush to Iraq they will do it again when it comes to Iran I'm afraid. More "sexed up papers" and the war games begin.

Edit: Notice: Outgoing British Ambassador. Wonder what their new ambassador thinks? Let's hope he does "think".

[Kaleko]

76. The vast majority of British voters despise Bushlickers, don't you know?

So much, in fact, they sacked Tony Blair. The rest of Europe was against the Iraq war from the get-go, remember? What to say about China and Russia? They've got financial and military weapons of such magnitude at the ready, a monkee attack on Iran would be akin to a suicide/murder plot. US hawks know this.

But... given that we're dealing with thousands of cornered psychopaths, I'm still calling Congress and everyone else to lock 'em up NOW!

[OneBlueSky]

60. if this Congress doesn't pre-emptively stop BushCo from attacking Iran . . .

they will be just as guilty of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that will result . . . that Members of Congress and are not raising holy hell about the impending attack is a crime in and of itself . . .

didn't they learn anything from Iraq? . . .

or are they simply in league with the devil? . . .

[JTFrog]

62. Seems we have the same fucking people on our team

banging the drums once again. Fool me once my ass.

Too damn many coincidences to convince me that the DLC isn't the republican infiltration of this party.

[Vinca]

63. I swear that's where those nukes were headed.

Supposedly their nuclear program is so deep underground that conventional weapons won't touch it. This is really frightening. Someone needs to get that madman out of the White House. Impeachment, Nancy, IMPEACHMENT!

[Preening Fop]

64. The "Art of Mass Murder", perfected by the Imperial U.S. Federal Government..

:nuke:

[The Wizard]

65. Lame reasoning

"If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.”"
According to the neocons, everything Clinton did was wrong and they undid everything Clinton accomplished. It's called dissembling mendacious duplicity. But that's what Republicans do best, that and take money out of circulation. Lying scumbags and war profiteers all.

[f the letter]

67. Speak out, now

Call those congressmen, representatives, governors, state reps/congressmen, newspaper editors, hell call Rupert Murdoch. This _cannot_ happen again

[Blackhatjack]

68. There is a certain 'freedom' to engage in real mayhem once you know you have lost all support ....

I said before that once Bush realized that his polls numbers would never rise to 50% again he would adopt the attitude that I might as well do as I please.

Cheney could care less about public opinion polling. He is about using the power of the office of the President and VP to bring about the policies that he would force upon our country and the world at large.

[FVZA_Colonel]

72. Their entire plan seems to revolve around air strikes taking out so much of their military

infrastructure that it sparks some sort of popular uprising, with US troops guarding some key facilities (oil, of course.) How can they possibly think they would win a war against Iran without sending in a sizeable contingent of ground troops to secure the entire country, a contingent we don't have?

[The Stranger]

73. Awaken the Nancy!

[L0oniX]

74. Woopie we're all gonna die...

We deserve it because we won't impeach these asscarrots and we won't stop work for a day and protest in the streets just as the French do. We need to be the wrench in the gears and stop this country cold and then they will pay attention...I guarantee it.