# Bush Admin planning post-Labor-Day "product rollout" of war-with-Iran hysteria? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2007, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520 "2007-08-30T17:21:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/281 "2007-09-28T01:44:40Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Er…well, its 3 years old? Could that be the reason? -XT [/QUOTE] In and of itself, no. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/282 "2007-09-28T02:48:39Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] It says the propaganda effort is intended to raise public support for a war “that can be maintained.” It clearly isn’t talking about a one-off bombing, but a sustained conflict. [/QUOTE] As others have said, bombing is unlikely to make the Iranians play nice. As they escalate following the few lobbed bombs, so the conflict will be dragged out. Furthermore, the Rubin post also referred to an, “irresponsible military adventure from the Cheney-Bush administration”, which pretty much covers a Sunday afternoon’s bombardment. ## Substantively though, there’s a sharp distinction between launching a few cruise missiles at Iraq, Afghanistan or Serbia c. 1997 and doing the same to Iran in 2008. The latter action is far more likely to lead to escalation, since Iran can plausibly retaliate with accelerated WMD development. That was a nice NYT link btw. My take is that something was afoot in Aug 2007. That something turned out to be 1. accelerated military planning for a regime change operation in Iran, 2. lots of not-especially-subtle sabre rattling, including #1, 3. an inside the beltway propaganda offensive, aimed at the joint chiefs, and now 4. a push for stronger international economic sanctions against Iran. Note that #1-#3 could conceivably advance #4 by focusing the minds of our European partners. That’s the optimistic story anyway. I sure hope Cheney-Bush are not seriously considering surgical strikes or other exercises in wishful military thinking. Thank you Ravenman for confirming my preconceptions. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/283 "2007-09-28T02:52:41Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Nope. You’re obviously wrong. The OP is divided into **two** parts. 1-The blog quote predicting an increase in anti-Iran hysteria/propaganda after Labor Day. [/quote] … designed to increase public support for a prolonged fight with Iran. That’s what the OP says. This “heavy sustained assault on the airwaves” aimed at supporting an invasion of Iran hasn’t occurred. > [@](#): > > 2-The link to The Atlantic piece, which if you’ve bothered to read, once again, rebuts the notion that a “one-off” bombing à la Israel vs Iraq circa June 7, 1981, would have any realistic chances of success as it did then. Perhaps you missed my link to a story that said that the current Administration thinking is – quite reasonably – that airstrikes would lead to greater violence in Iraq, Israel, and other places. Which of course is supported by the Atlantic piece. And yet you continue to argue that the White House doesn’t think an airstrike will lead to anything worse… which, of course, isn’t supported by the Washington Post article I linked to earlier today. > [@](#): > > They are ready – NOW – to cause all sorts of military acts, that short of you nuking them, would make Iraq appear as a cakewalk – and as we all know, some “cakewalk” **that** has been. I think there’s been quite a few people predicting for more than three years than an attack on Iran is imminent. The term “chicken little” comes to mind. Seeing as how your support for this conclusion that Bush et al is laying the groundwork for war RIGHT NOW is only supported by opinion pieces (like the bare assertions in the Nation piece you linked to today) with apparently no knowledgeable sources provided, I simply see no reason to believe your allegation that war is just around the corner. > [@](#): > > One article from the OP and **one relevant one** amongst at least six or seven cites I’ve quoted and you’re calling me “outdated”? I asked you about your links to stories in post number 228 and 225 about 2004 stories about MEK/MKO terrorists and what they had to do with today. You did not respond. Then you link again to the Atlantic article from 2004, but again displaying the tendency for some not to read and understand their cites very well, it also contains three major points which are apparently are lost on the “oh my gods Bush is going to attack soon!” crowd. First, the article concludes that participants in the wargame unanimously thought that the President would know that the military option was too dangerous, but that rattling sabers may help diplomacy. (I disagree to some extent, but hey, you’re the ones saying how great the article is.) Your response seems to be that Bush is preparing for war anyway, which sets you at odds with the people who conducted the wargame that you think is so great. Second, there have been statements that Iran isn’t actually seeking nuclear weapons, so Bush is essentially going to lie again to get us into war. Again, this is at odds with the participants of the wargame. They unanimously believe that Iran is seeking the bomb and that they will get it. Finally, and this is more of a philosophical point than anything else, is that wargames are not predictors of events, they are exercises to expose various things, such as weaknesses in plans, problems of uncertainty, challenge assumptions, and so on. I think a lot of you have the wrong idea of what a wargame is: one doesn’t run a wargame to determine what your enemy is going to do, you run a wargame to learn lessons about what you shouldn’t do. A wargame isn’t going to show that an airstrike is going to lead to Iran doing this, that or the other. A wargame will show that one must take into account the risks that a particular action takes with it. It is intelligence, not wargames, that provide insight on what Iran might actually do if we bombed their nuclear facilities. I get the feeling that some people didn’t actually read the whole article, because I think it is being represented as proof that an airstrike on Iran will cause a huge war. That’s something that the participants considered, but nowhere do I see anything in the article that claims to be a predictor of what is to come. In other words, the Atlantic article doesn’t seem to show what you think it shows. > [@](#): > > Unless, of course, nukes are involved. And them you tell me, you honestly, really think the world is going to sit idly-by while the US conquers 80% of the world’s remaining oil reserves? Well, except for the fact that I’ve continually said that the US isn’t going to attempt to start a war with Iran, whether by bombing or invading, you might have a point. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/284 "2007-09-28T04:12:37Z")
[**U.S. Funding Armed Groups to Overthrow Iranian Government**](http://www.aina.org/news/20070317151234.htm) Posted 3-17-2007. Trust that’s recent enough for you. Other than that, AFAIAC our discussion is over – not going to get into an insipid semantic wrangle over what The Atlantic article **actually and non-equivalently** says. Though I would still suggest reading Ritter’s piece. Not the first time he’s been correct. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/285 "2007-09-28T05:11:38Z")
Well, if you can’t trust sources like the Assyrian International News Agency, who can you trust? > [@](#): > > BERKELEY, United States (IPS) – Author of the upcoming book “The Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis”, due for release in September from Polipoint Press, Reese Erlich recently spent three weeks investigating Kurdish resistance organisations in Iran and Iraq’s Kurdish region. He tells IPS that “the United States is officially funding armed groups to overthrow the Islamic government” in Tehran. Sounds like a winner to me. And then there is Reese Erlich, an unimpeachable source, neutral and unbiased, a freelance journalist for the past 20 years who incidentally co-wrote 2003’s best seller (wasn’t it?) “Target Iraq”. And our all time favorite, Omid Memarian, another neutral and throughly unbiased observer: > [@](#): > > Omid Memarian is an Iranian journalist and civil society activist. He has won several awards, including Human Rights Watch’s highest honour in 2005, the Human Rights Defender Award. His blog can be found at [http://omidmemarian.blogspot.com](http://omidmemarian.blogspot.com). I mean, if you can’t trust an Iranian national who has won the coveted Human Rights Watch Human Rights Defender Award, just who the hell CAN you trust these days?? I’d say you’ve definitely settled the debate with this one Red…knocked it completely out of the park! This is smoking gun proof that the US is in fact poised for a media blitz on Iran the likes of which have never been seen before by mortal OR immortal man (or women, sheep, goats or other animals too numerous to name here)! Well done. ¡Que chinga! (for the mods, this roughly translates into thats heavy or What a heavy thing…well, roughly). I was going to provide Red with one of the touching sayings d’mi auelo, but as this concerned a donkey and a bull with a raised eyebrow, and as translations between Mexican Spanish and Spanish spoken in Spain can sometimes lead to misunderstandings I felt I should be better safe than sorry. Eh Red? -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/286 "2007-09-28T06:46:43Z")
So, this fellow is of suspect nationality, and is admired by “human rights” organizations (yeah, sure, “human rights”, we all know what that \*really \* means…) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/287 "2007-09-28T13:23:52Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Other than that, AFAIAC our discussion is over – not going to get into an insipid semantic wrangle over what The Atlantic article **actually and non-equivalently** says. Though I would still suggest reading Ritter’s piece. Not the first time he’s been correct. [/QUOTE] I will read Ritter’s article – haven’t had a chance yet – but please quote the part of the Atlantic article that predicts Iran’s behavior after an attack. The “CENTCOM general” talks about the “strategic risks” of various military options (pg 4), the wargame ends before there is a US attack of any kind, and concludes that the US “would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of [an airstrike].” (pg 6) The article cannot be read any other way. It does not make predictions. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/288 "2007-09-28T13:28:34Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] I will read Ritter’s article – haven’t had a chance yet – but please quote the part of the Atlantic article that predicts Iran’s behavior after an attack. The “CENTCOM general” talks about the “strategic risks” of various military options (pg 4), the wargame ends before there is a US attack of any kind, and concludes that the US “would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of [an airstrike].” (pg 6) The article cannot be read any other way. It does not make predictions. [/QUOTE] Glad to hear you’ll read what Ritter has to say on this matter – as you know he’s been right before. As for the second part of your query, I already did. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9021998&postcount=278). I even highlighted the relevant part for you. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/289 "2007-09-28T15:15:06Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] As for the second part of your query, I already did. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9021998&postcount=278). I even highlighted the relevant part for you. [/QUOTE] I guess I missed that before, I did state my case too broadly, and that part of the article does indeed support your point. However, I strongly believe that that statement is the result of a poor understanding of war games by the journalist rather than the intent of the designer and the participants. War games simply are not meant to be predictors. Let me quote from [Wikipedia:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation#Problems_of_simulation) > [@](#): > > Many of the criticisms directed towards military simulations derive from **an incorrect application of them as a predictive** and analytical tool. The outcome supplied by a model relies to a greater or lesser extent on human interpretation and therefore should not be regarded as providing a ‘gospel’ truth. However, whilst this is generally understood by most game theorists and analysts, **it can be tempting for a layman — for example, a politician who needs to present a ‘black and white’ situation to his electorate — to settle on an interpretation that supports his preconceived position.** Tom Clancy, in his novel Red Storm Rising, illustrated this problem when one of his characters, attempting to persuade the Soviet Politburo that the Warsaw Pact could win a conflict with NATO, used as evidence the results of a simulation carried out to model just such an event. It is revealed in the text that there were in fact three sets of results from the simulation; a best-, intermediate- and worst-case outcome. The advocate of war chose to present only the best-case outcome, thus distorting the results to support his case. … > **All the above means that models of warfare should be taken for no more than they are: a non-prescriptive attempt to inform the decision-making process.** The dangers of treating military simulation as gospel are illustrated in an anecdote circulated at the end of the Vietnam War, which was intensively gamed between 1964 and 1969 … The story concerned a fictional aide in Richard Nixon’s administration, who, when Nixon took over government in 1969, fed all the data held by the US pertaining to both nations into a computer model — population, gross national product, relative military strength, manufacturing capacity, numbers of tanks, aircraft and the like. The aide then asked the question of the model, “When will we win?” Apparently the computer replied, “You won in 1964!” ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/290 "2007-10-01T01:30:36Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] And then there is Reese Erlich, an unimpeachable source, neutral and unbiased, a freelance journalist for the past 20 years who incidentally co-wrote 2003’s best seller (wasn’t it?) “Target Iraq”. [/QUOTE] **xtisme** has not explicitly alleged that Reese Erlich is a hack. SDMB give and take aside, I’d like to note that Mr. Erlich is a “Real Journalist”: > [@](#): > > Auto-bio blurb by Mr. Erlich: > [iranproject.org](http://www.iranproject.org/credits/erlich.html) > > Reese Erlich reports regularly for National Public Radio, Marketplace Radio, Latino USA, Radio Deutche Welle, Australian Broadcasting Corp. Radio, and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Radio. (Don’t forget that he also writes for San Francisco Chronicle, St. Petersburg Times, and Christian Science Monitor.) > > Erlich has been a media critic for San Francisco’s KQED-FM (NPR affiliate) since 1988. > > His “Perspectives on Jazz” series airs on sixteen public radio stations in the United States and Canada. These three- to four-minute profiles of jazz artists also appear online through the San Jose Mercury News. > > Erlich has won numerous journalism awards, including the 1996 Chicago International Film Festival’s Silver Hugo for investigative reporting and first and second place in the Media Alliance’s 1993 “Project Bay Area Censored” competition. For the year 2000, he received a major grant from the California Council for the Humanities to produce radio documentaries on California jazz and blues. Erlich is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the Media. Incidentally, there’s a possible private-sector rollout in the works. From today’s NYT: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30watch.html?pagewanted=1&\_r=1&ref=todayspaper](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30watch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper) > [@](#): > > Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy. > > Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group. … > > Last week, a Freedom’s Watch newspaper advertisement called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran “a terrorist.” The group is considering a **national advertising campaign focused on Iran** , a senior benefactor said, though Matt S. David, a spokesman for the group, declined to comment on those plans. … > > One benefactor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the group was hoping to raise as much as $200 million by November 2008. Raising big money “will be easy,” the benefactor said, adding that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million. … Former George Bush spokesperson Air Fleisher and Bush-Cheney 2000 PR employee Mr. Blakeman will be running the show. Since it’s organized as a nonprofit, they don’t have to report their donor’s list, but they are not allowed to coordinate activities with the White House or engage in partisan activities. So they will not do that. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/291 "2007-10-01T07:39:33Z")
Holy moley: Seymour M. Hersh of The New Yorker weighs in: [Shifting Target’s: The Administration’s Plan for Iran](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh). I’ve only read the first page. The admin is rather clever, tactically speaking. Cheney and Bush have concluded that the public isn’t eager about an Iranian bombing campaign due to insufficient hysteria regarding nukes. Separately, the intelligence community thinks Iran is 5 years away from acquiring the bomb. Also, they are figuring out that Iran has won the Bush/Afgani/Iraqi War. So they rewriting their plans. The Joint Chiefs have been ordered to find Revolutionary Guard targets: they threaten American Servicemen 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 chance of an Iranian bombing is currently at 24%. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/292 "2007-10-03T05:23:15Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] I get the feeling that some people didn’t actually read the whole article, because I think it is being represented as proof that an airstrike on Iran will cause a huge war. That’s something that the participants considered, but nowhere do I see anything in the article that claims to be a predictor of what is to come. [/QUOTE] Well, I read the whole article… 3 years ago. I mostly agree with your characterization of the wargame exercise: it’s about evaluating strategy and forcing the participants to think hard about the consequences of their proposed courses of action. Indeed, the first page of the article noted that the wargame was a 3 hour affair, not a 3 day one: its intent was to highlight the strategic and logistical essentials of a US-Iranian conflict. But. The exercise also brought together a range of national security experts, and a rough consensus was reached among this group with hawkish leanings. Specifically, a bombing of some of the nuclear facilities won’t stop the Iranians, as the Osirak strikes stopped the Iraqis. And that furthermore, bombing would tend to increase their determination to secure nukes. I call that a catastrophe, but perhaps that’s an overstatement: it certainly wasn’t characterized that way in the article. > [@Ravenman](#): > > First, the article concludes that participants in the wargame unanimously thought that the President would know that the military option was too dangerous, but that rattling sabers may help diplomacy. (I disagree to some extent, but hey, you’re the ones saying how great the article is.) Your response seems to be that Bush is preparing for war anyway, which sets you at odds with the people who conducted the wargame that you think is so great. Again, it’s at bottom a hawkish piece. Personally, I can deal with subtle diplomacy along with some shaking of the cutlery ( **elucidator** ’s concerns notwithstanding), but not from this admin. Cheney-Bush have a confirmed track record of wishful thinking and foreign policy incompetence. I’d prefer to wait for a Clinton/Obama/McCain/Romney administration. * * * Anyway, this week’s New Yorker article quotes the hawk Zbigniew Brzezinski: in his opinion striking at Iran would intensify, “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.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/293 "2007-10-07T22:04:36Z")
General Petraeus [just announced](http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/?iref=mpstoryview) that Iran’s ambassador to Iraq is a Quds Force operative and – [contradicting PM Maliki](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401660.html?hpid=topnews) – that Iran is still arming the Iraq insurgents. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/294 "2007-10-08T15:20:20Z")
Well, I suppose it IS post-Labor-Day. This roll out sure is stealthy though…I mean, I expect that similar things were being said about Iran (i.e. that they were supplying insurgents, etc etc) BEFORFE Labor-Day… Or…well, here is a thought. Maybe the OP meant NEXT Labor-Day? Perhaps the big roll out won’t be until next year. And if that doesn’t work, there is always the year after that…or the one after that! I understand that several doom’s day predictions have worked this way… -XT ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/295 "2007-10-08T17:38:51Z")
Yeah, Petraeus’ statement was just another liberal media lie! Thanks for setting the record straight, **xtisme**! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/296 "2007-10-08T18:01:09Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] General Petraeus [just announced](http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/?iref=mpstoryview) that Iran’s ambassador to Iraq is a Quds Force operative and – [contradicting PM Maliki](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401660.html?hpid=topnews) – that Iran is still arming the Iraq insurgents. [/QUOTE] So if President Jenna Bush orders the first US attack on Iran during her first term in 2038, you’re going to consider the OP prediction vindicated? That will, after all, be post-Labor Day. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/297 "2007-10-08T19:08:01Z")
Sure hope your snarky sarcasm is warranted, I sincerely do. I hope that, a year from now, you and **XT** can host a gloating thread about how full of beans we silly, hysterical lefties were. Rub our noses in it all you like: as a pessimist, I love to be wrong. But maybe its the effects of advancing age, or maybe all those drugs are finally catching up with me, but I can’t escape the odd feeling that we’ve had this argument before, its eerily reminiscent, like \*deja voodoo \* all over again. But, go ahead, sneer away. After all, when have we ever been right? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/298 "2007-10-08T20:27:43Z")
[QUOTE=vibrotronica] Thanks for setting the record straight, xtisme! [/QUOTE] Well…thanks for NOT setting the record straight there but for doing another hyperbolic strawman! Appreciated! IOW, where exactly did I say that Petraeus’ statement was a ‘liberal media lie’? -XT ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/299 "2007-10-08T21:06:10Z")
Here’s a little prediction for **xtisme** : You’ll keep denying there is a push for war until the bombs start falling. Then you’ll be all for the war, since it’s already started and now we have to support the troops and all. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520/300 "2007-10-08T21:18:52Z")
And, in the spirit of these Nostradamus-like predictions, here is one for vibrotronica: You will keep mischaracterizing what I say, building strawmen positions to portray what you think are my points, and keep wringing your hands until GW is out of office about this supposed attack in Iran…and then you will happily state that the only reason it didn’t happen was because of eagle eyed troopers like yourself were onto his plot so he couldn’t pull it off. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-planning-post-labor-day-product-rollout-of-war-with-iran-hysteria/417520.md?page=16)