Democrats & Liberals Archives

Iran, Iraq part II

Please hum Star Spangled Banner while reading this:

We must hit Iran now. We must not wait the five to ten years for them to have nukes. We can not use diplomacy. Diplomacy is for P*$$!#$. We have research from several “think-tanks”, Energy CEO’s and War Hawks that proves this is a neccessary foreign policy. If Cheney likes it, damn it so do I!

What are we waiting for?
Let’s attack Iran now. We don’t need any Gulf of Tonkin incident crap (For history challenged, that's the trumped up, I mean all too real attacks by Vietnamese PT boats on U.S. Destroyers that allowed the valiant Military Industrial Complex and war hawk administration to justify the Vietnam War).
We don't need another WMD incident (For history challenged, The nonexistent Uranium and chemical weapons, oops, I mean WMD, smoking gun, mushroom clouds that the Military Industrial Complex and totally competent war hawk administration used to justify our Vietnam-like current War On Terror in Iraq) because it actually hurt us in our, sit down cause this is really scary sounding, “Global War On Terror Against Islamo-Fascists, Who We Must Fight There So We Don’t Have To Fight Them Here In Order To Bring Saddam To Justice and Stabilize the Region.”(Whew, I'm outa breath) Long title I know, but absolutely neccessary to scare the bejesus out of the folks who watch FOX News, 24 and O'Reilly.

The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation have proven that they have this nations best interest at heart. They, along with the screaming obvious profiteers of this well run war in Iraq have every right to attack Iran. They're brown-skinned and scary. The name of their President alone, causes most of us good god fearing Americans to become angry at the very sound of it. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hell we should bomb them into oblivion so we don't have to say Ahmadinejad ever again. (It hurts every time I say it)

We can transfer the warm fuzzies that our invasion in Iraq has produced and ride that wave of success into the streets of Tehran. We'll probably be "greeted as liberators."
Once we get Ahmadine(Ouch)jads Armed forces in their "last throes", we can seize control of all the oil in the Middle East. There will be no consequences, it'll probably take a month or two to "accomplish our mission." Right? We don't even have to study the culture and history of the Iranian people cause they're just like Iraqi's right?

Our government has a proven track record. We must trust and not question them. They are being guided by god. They are working for the American people. They know what's best for us. Why do the liberal left-wing gay loving Nancy Pelossi types keep on emboldening the enemy? How dare the dope-smoking liberal, terrorist loving, Hillarycon Dems spout off the untruths told by the liberal mainstream media that clearly put a smile on Osama Bin Laden's face. I wish Cheney would just shoot them all in the face.
I say we attack everybody. Kill em all, let God sort em out.
Let's all be Super-Patriots, support our President and ride the rocket down to earth.
The blow-hard rhetoric alone is almost theraputic.

A Great Big Thank You Bush apologists, GOP Pundits and the complacent American public from:

With Much Love, (Not the sissy, mushy kind, or gay kind, but you know manly patriotic love, from:

Wealthiest 1% of Americans, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Haliburton KBR, DynCorp International, Bechtel, SyColeman, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics and The Decider himself G.W Bush "Shrub"

Molly Ivans died today, that sucks.

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at February 1, 2007 9:57 AM
Comments
Comment #206140

Andre-
Put a sock in it. Your diatribe is neither funny nor enlightening.

Posted by: John Back at February 1, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #206143

Nobody is enthusiastic about invading Iran. We could not really pull it off, you know, at least not at a reasonable cost.

The Iranian government has enough trouble. Their president is unpopular, their oil fields are failing, infrastructure is falling apart. As a matter of fact, if we can just get through the next 4-5 years we will have lots of options there.

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #206145

You can’t be Bush, because he can’t use a computer. Are you Cheney? Rove? ;-)

In all seriousness, this post is about as intelligent as Bush sounds when talking about Iraq. It’s all bluster, and it’s dangerous.

Posted by: Max at February 1, 2007 2:17 PM
Comment #206146

If you are interested in what the Administration is really saying about Iran you can listen. It is not as interesting as your straw man, but it has the advantage of being realistic.

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #206152

I say give them a nuclear bomb free gratis, with the understanding that if the isotope shows up anywhere after use outside of Iran, Iran will cease to exist. Welcome to M.A.D.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #206153

I say give them a nuclear bomb free gratis

Would they take it? I thought they wanted nookuler weapons. ;-)

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #206159

I stumbled on this editorial from Kuwait several days ago:

US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/view.asp?msgID=9548

What makes that seem especially credible to me is the fact that it seems reassuring to our “allies” in the region:

“Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects.” “

Does this not sound like “classic” Bush-speak?

“The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.”

Posted by: KansasDem at February 1, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #206164

Adrienne,

Thank you for linking to the good news regarding military planning. Our military has plans on how to attack just about any country, including Canada, but sometimes these plans don’t cover all post-invasion scenarios. Iraq was a good example of this.

I’m thankful the military is taking contingency planning to the next level.
I’m really thankful that planning a war doesn’t mean you are going to start one. I’d hate to go to war with Iran or, God forbid, Canada.

So you can stop your fear-mongering. Unlike Iraq, an attack on Iran would have to be done without Congressional approval and would result in bi-partisan support for impeachment.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #206165

Andre,

Four things;

1) Take the sock out… It was funny. Scary but funny.
2) Who’ll bet that this will be the Fox mantra on the Iran run up?
3) It’s not ‘dope-smoking liberal, terrorist loving, Hillarycon Dems ’ It’s ‘Dims
4) I wonder who else got the Slim Pickins reference.

Survival kit contents check. In them you’ll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days’ concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella’ could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
Traveller,
Yeah, thank goodness Bush follows the constitution and advice of Congress. He sure wouldn’t do anything that might be of questionable merit or risk impeachment.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #206167

Yeah, thank goodness Bush follows the constitution and advice of Congress. He sure wouldn’t do anything that might be of questionable merit or risk impeachment.

You’re right, but the difference with this scenario is that impeachment would be a sure thing.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #206168

Okay.
I thought the left side of the isle had been complaining for the last four years that Bush should have gone to war with Iran NOT Iraq and that talking won’t get it with Iran….

Posted by: dawn at February 1, 2007 3:48 PM
Comment #206170

Dawn

Actually they advocated going to war with North Korea and Iran.

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2007 3:55 PM
Comment #206172

Andre: The references to Fox and O’Reilly are all hogwash. You obviously never tune in and just make comments based upon some other person’s perception. I watch Fox, CNN and many others. Where in the hell do you get such garbage? Bit of advice…use your fingers for something more productive than typing crap that does nothing more than inflame and ridicule.

Posted by: Jim at February 1, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #206173

You sure Jack? We may have misinterpreted what they really meant.

Posted by: dawn at February 1, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #206182

No one from the left advocated a war with N. Korea or Iran. Rather, when Bush listed that his primary reason for invading Iraq was to liberate it’s people from a dictator, Democrats pointed out that this is happening all over the world. Alone, it was not enough of a reason to start a war with no planning or clear goals.

Given America’s bitter experience in Iraq, one would think Bush could finally figure out that threats and brute force aren’t a substitute for a reasoned strategy. But Bush is at it again, this time trying to bully Iran into stopping its meddling inside Iraq. Again, I don’t disagree with Bush that Iran has to be dealt with. I just think he’s going about it in a stupid, rash, dangerous way.

Posted by: Max at February 1, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #206185

Are any of you listening to Kansas Dem’s comment above?

Bush wants to escalate the war in Iraq. What surer way than a strategic strike on Iran, which in turn leaves Iran only one way to strike back, at our troops in Iraq. Which in turn will motivate the American people (in Bush’s thinking) to ressuport the escalation to take out this new threat to Iraq and our troops.

It all makes sense, possibly even the part about Americans supporting the escalation, for a short while. The White House’s postition then shifts to: “We can’t pull out, or Iran will overtake Iraq, or, oil disruptions occur in a new war between Iraq and Iran which America cannot tolerate.

I see Karl Rove’s and Dick Cheney’s signatures all over this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #206191

Max:
“No one from the left advocated a war with N. Korea or Iran.”

Don’t mind that, Max. Some people think they can make those kind of BS comments and that others have such short memories that they’ll believe anything.
I have a good memory. Therefore, I remember folks on the left asking (and I was one of them) why we were invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 when we hadn’t won the war in Afghanistan, and when most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

David:
“Are any of you listening to Kansas Dem’s comment above?”

Yes. That was a good link KD. I’ve read several times recently that their strike on Iran is likely to happen sometime around April.

David, re: the rest of your post, I agree. Question is, how can they be stopped? I think perhaps Congress should tell the president that if he doesn’t get their approval before striking Iran, he will automatically risk immediate impeachment proceedings.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #206195

Jack and Dawn
I believe what the left was saying was that they were a bigger threat to “deal with” than a tin horned dictator Clinton already had contained. I guess in some minds that only means going to war.

I just read about Molly Ivans. Your right that does suck. I bet Bush is dancing. She had Bush and Cheney pegged long ago.

Posted by: 037 at February 1, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #206209

Did anyone happen to watch ABC Nightly News last night (01/31/2007)?

They did a fairly lenghty section on how it seems to be the“IN” thing to blame Iran for the mess going on in Iraq. I wish I’d paid a bit more attention to it, but basically they seemed to raise some very valid questions regarding just how much “help” Iran is actually giving the insurgents in Iraq.

Apparently even the idea that Iran is selling weapons is in question - as no one knows when the weapons were purchased, by whom, or from whom.

Apparently Iran is not aiding Iraq anywhere near the amount our illustrious President is trying to indicate. In fact the news implied (as it often does) that these innuendoes are very similar to the “facts” we were given regarding our initial invasion of Iraq.

I just hope ABC is right, and not Bush - although I’m afraid when it comes to deciding about invading Iran, Mr. Bush will try to decide what he wants to do all by himself. As usual.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 1, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #206212

The real question should be; if Iran developes nuclear weapons and the technology to deliver them at significant distances what would a democratic controled white house and congress do about it? I suspect the answer is not a thing. As long as Iran “promised” us that they were only intended for defensive purposes that would be more than enough for the left to not take action.
Just as the bush administration made a critical mistake in thinking that if we gave the Iraqi people democracy everything would be fine so the left feels that all we need to do is negotiate with Iran and all will be fine.

Posted by: Carnak at February 1, 2007 7:56 PM
Comment #206216

Andre - Thanks for the tribute to Molly.

I’m just a little… .no, VERY shocked that everyone else is so freaking knee-jerk in their reaction that they didn’t get it.

That being said, I think that if you took out the obvious sarcasm you could sell this text to some of the “conservative” radio shows that have infiltrated my AM listening (much to my entertainment).

God Bless your Liberal Soul.

Posted by: bandguylib at February 1, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #206245

I just saw a report on my local news about recruiters telling teenagers how they can fake their way past the drug tests in order to join up.

So, we’ve gone in fifteen years from fighting the war on drugs to fighting the war with drugs.

This is what we’re having to do to keep recruitment up. This administration has fumbled on the basics when it comes to fighting war. If your kid can’t drive down the street without running your car into a light pole, why do you want to trust him to get on the freeway?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #206256

Democrats are really funny. If anyone reading this hasn’t noticed, Democrats like to now talk tough and blame everything on Republicans while forgetting that many of them voted for the war originally, have been for the war, were for expanding the war as Kerry seemed to campaign for in the 2004 election when he tried to out-Bush Bush, and have been for it until very very recently. The Democrats had there chance to stand against this war, and the trumped up “evidence” that led us too it. They had the chance to do something in 2004, but they Kerryed it all up (grammatical note: Kerryed up: messed up, failing). Now they are finally standing up, and even just barely standing up now, and they act like what they did over the past several years to help this war start and continue can all be forgetten, because now they have “woke up”.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at February 2, 2007 12:10 AM
Comment #206269

Let’s all be Super-Patriots, support our President and ride the rocket down to earth.

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at February 1, 2007 09:57 AM

Andre, you left out the most vital part -

YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW………………

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at February 2, 2007 4:12 AM
Comment #206281

The National Intelligence Estimate just came out and said Iran had MINIMAL influence on the violence in Iraq. I suggest you read it. This is what Bush gets when he blames the CIA for the “Intelligence” Cheney handpicked last time.

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 2, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #206304

Bandguylib,

She was a great writer and I enjoyed her brutal honesty when she spoke up against obvious incompetence in our government. She made you angry and laugh at the same time.

Paul,

I love that movie.

John Back,

I hate the taste of sock.


Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 2, 2007 10:55 AM
Comment #206362

Gw,

Are you saying that blind compliance and the inability to recognize the obvious would make a person a better fighter?
I would get tougher if I ignore the world around me? Stop informing myself? If I quit reading I’ll become a real bad-ass?
If I allow my rights to be taken from me so I can hide from the terrorists, I’m all of the sudden a bad mother(Shut yo mouth) like Shaft?
Yeah right.
I’ll keep my rights, keep informed and not fall for the fear mongering by the GOP and Bush, so that the Bush supporters who follow the motto “Be afraid, be very afraid” and “fear everything” can protect me from the scary “Islamo-Facsists.”
That’s funny. The party of fear is the braver party.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 2, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #206373

gw,

Neither of us is full of it. Well maybe I am a little;)

We see things differently. We have differing views as to when and if we should fight.
I see Bush’s mission not in the noble sense you do, but as a mismanaged, needless and costly mistake.
Should we have gone into Afganistan? Yes. Iraq? No

I know when to fight. When attacked. We were, by Saudi’s trained by Al Queda. An organization run by Osama Bin Laden.
There’s the noble fight. Not Iraq.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 2, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #206429

Richard Rhodes-
Stand up and do what? The reason this war went the way it did is that Democrats were largely reduced to symbolic gestures, while the Republicans ran things continuously.

But you know what? Many of us were taken in. Those were the times, the concerns of 9/11 fresh on our minds. You can smugly insist that we should have known better, but that’s what we have to live with. I can at least say that I didn’t sit down for it once I learned what really went down.

While you’re blaming people, why don’t you just keep that blame directed on those who knew what they were doing when the lied to the rest of us, who didn’t know what they were doing when they got us into this mess? It’s convenient to snipe at us now, with the Democrats only now having regained the legislature, and complain about how we didn’t do anything earlier. It’s fairer, though, to recognize that we had one party dominating, and Congress and the President rubberstamping the other.

Carnak-
We didn’t give the Iraqis Democracy. We gave them a country out of control. As for Iran? What do you honestly expect to do at this point? Most Iranians have no interest in nukes. They want nuclear power. Moreover, the plants for refining the uranium are hardly functioning. Their centrifuges are so touchy, they’re barely producing anything at Reactor grade, much less at weapons grade.

We can allow them nuclear fuel, let them build plants, and keep good account of what we give and get back. Right now Ahmedinejad is not all that popular, and his public would be unlikely to support agressive action on his part.

But hey, he’s got to be a big bad guy. He’s got to be on the verge of making nukes. Watch out, the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities. Eh… where did we hear that before?

Let’s drop the paranoid B.S. Democrats are not going to like a Nuclear Iran, no matter how much you want us to be that easy to argue against. The way to calm things down is to entangle these folks in agreements and treaties. Iran itself would like to be nuclear, but it’s more interested in a plant than a bomb.

You can either make this situation better, or make it worse. All the hair-raising scare-tactics on the Bush administration’s part have only managed to make things worse.

Stop trying to self congratulate yourselves on the defense of this country. Bush’s policies have made armed force less of a deterrent to would be proliferators.

gw-
It’s just that sort of underestimation of the steel in Liberal’s spine that lost Republicans the election. Those who think we’re just wimpier versions of Republicans don’t know what they’re dealing with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2007 11:33 PM
Post a comment