The Bush administration has no basis for starting a war with Iran

[ProSense]

I'm starting to believe this is an elaborate scheme to distract focus from Iraq.

Poll after poll shows their spin is not winning any support among Americans.

The international community is not on board.

The U.S. military is stretched and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are a disaster.

“War Made Easy”: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

Still, I could be wrong. Bush and his minions are complete lunatics, but what happens after (if) he bombs Iran?

[spanone]

1. and they had no basis for a war with Iraq...they don't need one

[ProSense]

2. Right, but they faked the intelligence and the media helped them to convince the country.

The country is not behind them on Iran. Nobody is buying their BS!

[spanone]

8. i really don't think they care one bit what the country wants

[bdamomma]

38. no they don't.

but they do not recognize reality, look how they thought they were going to be voted in again in November 2006, they totally blew us off.

[alfredo]

3. Their whole mode of operation is to put us in a situation where

we have no choice but to do as they wish. Nothing short of removing him from office would have stopped his march to war in Iraq.

High debt is to force us to cut the social safety net.

Broken government is to turn us against government and into the greedy hands of the capitalist.

[Cha]

4. And that's why nancy pelosi

should not have taken Impeachment of bush and cheney "OFF THE TABLE".

This blood is on her hands, too, NOW.

[pscot]

5. The prospect of impeachment might have slowed their roll

but we preemptively disarmed ourselves before the fight was well under way. Clever move, that. I was an early defender of Ms Pelosi on this board, but now I don't know what the hell I could have been thinking. We serously need new leadership.

[alfredo]

7. I believe they were going to try a "removal in place." They don't

impeach but they strip him of dictatorial power. It has worked to some extent. It has exposed him and his party as a disaster.

[robinlynne]

18. They are giving him more power, and legalizing his breaches of the law.

[alfredo]

34. They are undercutting him by going after his advisors and hit men.

Don't just look at what goes on in congress. The real battles are going on in hearings and the courts.

[robinlynne]

37. good point.

[alfredo]

47. But if I wear a hat, it doesn't show.

[robinlynne]

48. your horns?

[alfredo]

49. No, the point

[robinlynne]

50. ok. nice donkey.

[alfredo]

51. It's Victory J Democrat. We do have a big Jack that is taken to

various outdoor Dem events. His name is victory J Democrat, so that's what I call my avatar.

[90-percent]

6. Who's buying into this?

Well, it seems the three democratic front runners certainly embrace this Iran War pretty wholeheartedly. I was appalled by what I heard them say in the last debate! They were talking like all of them getting chumped by this lying White House about Iraq NEVER HAPPENED!

Do they think the average American is an imbecile? Apparently so!

-85% Jimmy

[karynnj]

17. Obama said he would have voted no on Kyl/Leiberman

Edwards also said that if he were in the Senate he would have voted no - the 3 frontrunners should not be lumped together.

Bidan and Dodd also voted against it - with Biden referencing the IWR to say that Bush could not be trusted.

[bigtree]

19. why did they duck the vote

slippery

[karynnj]

32. Edwrards had no vote

Biden and Dodd voted against it. Obama was in NH and not feeling well - I think it would have been better - even politically if he would have flown back voted - even if it meant missing the debate because he was sick.

[bigtree]

36. thanks for the clarification.

[blm]

9. In July2006 Kerry told a crowd in SC that Bush would beat wardrums on Iran and

that we shouldn't believe what the WH tells us about the intel, because the latest intel they had said Iran was FIVE YEARS AWAY from nuclear weapon capability.

That was July2006. Little more than a year ago. Now BushInc is planting stories about Iranian and Syrian nukes and some leading Dems are going along with the lie.

If Kerry knew what the intel was in July2006, then no way did Hillary not know it, especially as Bill gets privileged briefings, too.

And, oh yeah, BushInc managed to get AQ Khan freed early last summer so they can have their 'culprit' at large to point a finger at as he's been one a BFEE operative practicing nuclear proliferation for decades - Poppy Bush ran a vast operation.

AQ Khan and Marc Rich were both named as outstanding matters in the DEc 1992 BCCI report that was handed to both the outgoing and incoming administrations.

[ProSense]

10. What happens after (if) he bombs Iran?

Anybody care to speculate?

[L. Coyote]

11. ABSOLUTELY correct.

Only a political neophyte would fail to see thru this psy-op.

It would be a war crime, just for starters!

It would end oil delivery to most of the world! How do you fight a war without oil?

Most significantly, it would end in utter defeat for the US.

The US should hope that the sane countries in the world do not turn off the oil supply to stop the current madness!

[EVDebs]

40. I've heard gas prices of around $4-6 per gallon. The economy tanks and the world goes with it.

At the same time, Iranians are already gas-rioting

Protesters torch Iran gas stations (June 27, 2007)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/27/iran.fuel/index.html

and sanctions are still in the works unilaterally with US and France.

Let's see how this plays out, but Bushco officials, like Debra Cagan, aren't' helping the situation.

Pray cooler heads prevail.

[bigtree]

12. kyl-Lieberman = basis (enough for this WH)

[ProSense]

13. That still doesn't address the rest of the OP. n/t

[bigtree]

14. I think all of those supposed obstacles were in place before the Iraq invasion

besides the fact that daylight is the best defense against any creep to war, this focus on Iran highlights the Bush ambitions for aggression against Iraq's neighbor which he's used as justification for keeping us bogged down there.

Yours is not a good argument. By that token, any move toward Iran should be ignored? Or should we give it attention only when the missiles are flying?

[ProSense]

15. No they were not! They sold the public (with false evidence) and convinced countries to join them.

The chances of that happening again are zero. The OP states that. Take off the blinders.

[bigtree]

16. The OP opines . . . You're out of line for so ridiculing those who disagree with your premise

Bush didn't care at all about what support he got before he invaded. He was prepared to invade Iraq without that support.

from 2002:

Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote
Some See Such Support As Politically Helpful

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer


blinders?

[ProSense]

21. The issue is not whether he needs Congressional authority, that is not mentioned in the OP. n/t

[bigtree]

24. your op is just a collection of links attached to a flawed premise

Bush has never cared a bit about any support from anywhere except from his privileged cabal.

[ProSense]

25. "Still, I could be wrong. Bush and his minions are complete lunatics, but what happens after..."

Are you just arguing for argument's sake?

[bigtree]

26. so, you couched your premise in "still I could be wrong"

you are wrong. Bush doesn't give a wit about what anyone thinks, except for his benefactors. Did they give a damn about the aftereffects of their Iraq invasion?

[ProSense]

29. No you are spinning to cover the fact that you do not want to address the question

Bush doesn't give a wit, OK. The premise (and question) Is this: First, is he willing to outrage the world when it's obvious Americans and the world community do not support him this time? Second, what happens if he does?


edited for complete thought.

[bigtree]

31. the answer (contained in my *responses for you to discern) is yes

Bush has shown (time and time again) how he's "willing to outrage the world when it's obvious Americans and the world community do not support him." With nothing impeding him in Iraq, I'm certain he feels he can do the same "this time."

You made a weak argument based on the premise that Bush gives a damn about the opinion of "Americans and the world community." He doesn't care -- and our legislature has proven ineffective in restraining his militarism so far. In this case, as has been highlighted repeatedly, he already has the justification from Congress that Iran's military 'threatens' our troops in Iraq. How much opposition do you really think our legislature can muster? They are the ONLY ones who Americans (in their opposition) can hope to restrain him.

[ProSense]

33. I made no such argument, but is you insist, OK. Now

care to address the second part of the question: What happens after he attacks Iran?

[bigtree]

35. your argument:

"Poll after poll shows their spin is not winning any support among Americans."

Bush doesn't give a damn about those polls. And Americans have no way to restrain him except through their representatives. Those legislators don't appear to have the will to stop him.


"The international community is not on board."

US garners support for strike on Iran

October 2, 2007

AUSTRALIA, Britain and Israel have reportedly "expressed interest" in a US campaign to launch surgical bombing raids on Iran targeting Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-garners-support-for-strike-on-iran/2007/10/01/1191091029426.html


"The U.S. military is stretched and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are a disaster."

Bush doesn't care and Congress hasn't shown the ability to restrain him.


Is there some OTHER argument somewhere you were making? I've repeatedly responded to the flawed one above.

[ProSense]

41. My argument:

The Bush administration has no basis for starting a war with Iran (False?)

I'm starting to believe this is an elaborate scheme to distract focus from Iraq.


Statements:

Poll after poll shows their spin is not winning any support among Americans.

The international community is not on board.

The U.S. military is stretched and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are a disaster.

“War Made Easy”: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

Question:

Still, I could be wrong. Bush and his minions are complete lunatics, but what happens after (if) he bombs?

Got an answer to the question?

While you're at it you may want to show where I stated that Bush cares about what people think.

[bigtree]

46. he'd have to care for ANY of the points you made to make a difference

Who the hell knows what would happen? We can list plenty which is likely to happen. Take Iraq and multiply.

You made your argument in the title (The Bush administration has no basis for starting a war with Iran). You argued that it might be a distraction. And it looked like you backed your argument up with the 'Statements':

Poll after poll shows their spin is not winning any support among Americans.

The international community is not on board.

The U.S. military is stretched and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are a disaster.


Then it appeared you wanted to have it both ways by writing, "Still, I could be wrong."


I'll just satisfy myself with having responded (in full) to your first premise.

[robinlynne]

20. But he "convinced" 75% of the senate.

[ProSense]

22. OK, now address the issues in the OP!

Then answer the question.

[robinlynne]

23. What I'm saying is that he can move forward without the people's consent.

Congress is allowing him to. i.e. our representatives are not representing us.

[ProSense]

27. He can move forward with or without Congress too.

Congress hasn't declared war, it was a (foolish) sense of the Senate bill.

Now, what happens if he Bush launches a war?

[Emit]

30. Chaos?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

42. Possibly! Thanks. n/t

[Emit]

45. By the by, I am currently listening to an AEI conference from earlier this month

You might be interested. Michael A. Ledeen, AEI; Cliff May, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; and R. James Woolsey, former CIA director

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1565,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

I think we need to listen to what being discussed by these think tanks. Despite our disdain for them, they still wield a great deal of power and influence.

The Iranian Time Bomb

BOOK FORUM

Start: Monday, September 10, 2007 2:00 PM

End: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:30 PM

Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Directions to AEI

Iran has now taken its rightful place at the center of our debate on the war. Hardly a day goes by without new revelations about Iran?s penetration of Iraq either by supplying weapons, money, guidance, and intelligence to both Sunni and Shiite terrorists, or, in some cases, sending soldiers from the Quds Force--an elite unit within Iran?s Revolutionary Guard--to confront American and Iraqi forces. And in the background we hear the leitmotif of the Iranian nuclear program, which continues apace despite international sanctions and negotiations.

An intensified debate has resulted: Is our current strategy adequate? Should we be more vigorous in confronting the Islamic Republic or should we--as under secretary of state for political affairs R. Nicholas Burns has recently argued--continue to use diplomacy as the primary component of our Iran policy? If we decide to take more active measures, what should they be?

In his latest book, The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for Destruction
(St. Martin?s Press, September 2007), AEI Freedom Scholar Michael A. Ledeen reviews the history of Iran?s long-standing war against the West and discusses American policy toward Iran from the fall of the shah to the present. He analyzes the Iranian regime?s treatment of its own citizens, presents a detailed assessment of the mullahs? vision of the future, and proposes an effective strategy for thwarting their global ambitions.

Former CIA director R. James Woolsey and Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, will join Michael A. Ledeen in discussing these and other questions upon which so much of America?s future depends.


1:45 p.m. Registration

2:00 Speakers: Michael A. Ledeen, AEI
Cliff May, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
R. James Woolsey, former CIA director

[doublethink]

28. Turkey makes some type of incursion into northern Iraq.

China takes Taiwan?, Musharraf of Pakistan is overthrown by extremist elements, Russia arms someone, Israel gets hit and strikes out at Syria, The shit really really hits the fan in Iraq, the draft is re-instated. Egyptians are pissed, on and on and on. All speculation of course, but some kinda fuse will be lit, guaranteed. Peace.

Oh and Bush is given even more dictatorial powers here at home. Nice uh? Peace.

[ProSense]

43. Thanks!

Any answer would be speculation so thanks for answering.

[Emit]

39. An elaborate and expensive scheme, if that is what it is.

Maybe Bush & Co. are just posturing -- playing chicken if you will -- hoping that Iran will give in. But Iran ratchets it up at every step. What will be the checkmate? Who's to say.

But, here's what concerns me and leads me to fear it's not just an attempt to distract:

Fox News, Freedom's Watch, and Marketing a War with Iran
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/27/162944/319

New Deep-Pocketed Conservative Group Has Sights Set On Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1941046&mesg_id=1941046

Shifting Targets-"They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk"-by Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1943839&mesg_id=1943839

Podhoretz: ‘I Believe Bush Is Going To Order Airstrikes On Iran Before He Leaves Office’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1950978

Emerging Right-Wing Group Aligned w/AEI Raising Millions to Lobby for War With Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1950788

List of leading proponents for waging war on Iran thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1941298

Regime Change in Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=233209

Is MEK/MKO the source for the propaganda about Iran?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=194123


Regime change in Iran is what the neoconservatives have been after for some time now -- that's obvious. They still have the ear of this administration. They are really at a loss with options to effect regime change in Iran.

Barring rigged elections or suspended elections, their window of opportunity to fulfill their wet dreams is fading fast.

Maybe this is all just posturing. That being said, to answer your final question, "What happens after (if) he bombs Iran?", God knows. Chaos? Global war and continued aggressive posturing for years to come. Death, destruction. Total disruption of economies. It's hard to fathom, really. It's a scary thought, IMHO.

Edited to add:

Joshua: Shall we play a game?
...
David Lightman: ... Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
David Lightman: Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.

~snip~

David Lightman: What is the primary goal?
Joshua: You should know, Professor. You programmed me.
David Lightman: C'mon. What is the primary goal?
Joshua: To win the game.

~snip~

David Lightman: Come on. Learn, goddammit.

~snip~
(after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War)
Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.
Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/quotes

[ProSense]

44. You may be right on both points!

Their window is fading fast, but what if they take advantage of it?

[AuntPatsy]

52. Good post, as much as one can make sense of this administration, your attempt

is up there.

[Emit]

56. Thanks.

:hi:

[ProSense]

53. If you are

registered at Kos, would you mind posting this here? Thanks.

[Emit]

54. Done. n/t

[ProSense]

55. Thanks! n/t