Bush Admin planning post-Labor-Day "product rollout" of war-with-Iran hysteria?

[Squink]

US President George W. Bush on Tuesday raised the specter of a “nuclear holocaust” in the Middle East if Israel’s arch-foe Iran …

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWPGY4__S8W1GYjEronbHugc8RNA

[RedFury]

The War Criminal in the Living Room

**The media is silent, Congress is absent, and Americans are distracted as George W. Bush openly prepares aggression against Iran.

US Navy aircraft carrier strike forces are deployed off Iran.

US Air Force jets and missile systems are deployed in bases in countries bordering or near to Iran.

US B-2 stealth bombers have been refitted to carry 30,000 pound “bunker buster” bombs.

The US government is financing terrorist and separatist groups within Iran.

US Special Forces teams are conducting terrorist operations inside Iran.

US war doctrine has been altered to permit first strike nuclear attack on Iran and other non-nuclear countries.

Bush’s war threats against Iran have intensified during the course of this year. The American people are being fed a repeat of the lies used to justify naked aggression against Iraq.

<snip>

Bush has discarded habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, justified torture and secret trials, damned critics as anti-American, and is responsible, according to Information Clearing House, for over one million deaths of Iraqi civilians, which puts Bush high on the list of mass murderers of all time. The vast majority of “kills” by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians.

<snip>

The Bush administration has made its war plans for attacking Iraq and positioned its forces without any prior approval from Congress. The “unitary executive” obviously doesn’t believe that an attack on Iran requires the approval of Congress. By its absence and quietude, Congress seems to agree that it has no role in the decision.

In the improbable event that Congress were to make any fuss about Bush’s decision to attack yet another country, the State Department has devised legalistic cover: simply declare Iran’s military to be a “terrorist organization” and go to war under the cover of the existing resolution.

The “Iran issue” has been created by the Bush administration, not by Iran. Iran, like many other countries, has a nuclear energy program to which it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

The Bush administration has brushed away this fact, which should be determining, just as the Bush administration brushed away the fact that weapons inspectors reported, prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

<snip>

Bush has declared himself to be the “decider.” The “decider” decides whether Americans have any rights under the Constitution and whether Iran has any rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As the “decider” has decided that Iran has no such rights, the “decider” decides whether to attack Iran. No one else has any say about it. The people’s representatives are just so much chaff in the wind.

Whatever form of government Bush is operating under, it is far outside an accountable constitutional democratic government. Bush has transitioned America to caesarism, and even if Bush leaves office in January 2009, the powers he has accumulated in the executive will remain. Unless Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, there is no prospect of the US Congress and federal judiciary ever again being co-equal branches of government.**

Yep. It’s sure not “crazy” to butcher a few hundred thousand more while the world sits, watching idly bye.

And no, I don’t want to hear any complaints about “blowback” as surely there won’t be any. Iranians? Cowering sheep calmly waiting to be slaughtered.

In some Americans’ deluded minds anyway.

[scotandrsn]

More fuel for this fire:

We have an early reverberation within the right-wing echo chamber, with Oliver North staking a position on how much weaponry Iran ought to have that is diametrically opposed to that which his actions 20 years ago might have suggested…

…The unwillingness of the majority party in Congress to even debate or put forward any proposals for how we should deal with the peril we face from Tehran ought to concern all of us; without a consensus in Congress on how we should confront a radical Islamic theocracy armed with atomic weapons places the nation in grave danger. Just six years after 3,000 people died at the hands of suicidal Islamic radicals, we may have to face the prospect of Islamic radicals having the capability of destroying an entire American city. The French have awakened to this peril. Will our Congress?

Yeah, Ollie, Congress woke up to the threat from Iran years ago, which is why they fried your ass for arming them.

The question is not whether Iran is a threat, or that American military might, competently applied in sufficient amounts, could deal with that threat, but whether the US military’s current chiefs have those amounts and that competence at their disposal.

There are those other than the OP who think Bush is ramping up the rhetoric to get around the fact that he has no congressional support. UK’s Telegraph says today:

…Only Congress has the power to declare war, and Mr Bush would need Congressional approval for military action against Iran within 60 days. Some think he might struggle to win that approval. “I don’t think there is any real fight left in this White House. And no one in Congress wants to help them,” said one Republican.

But critics fear that if Mr Bush cannot advocate confrontation with Iran, he might yet seek to provoke it. Joseph Cirincione, of the Centre for American Progress, accuses Mr Bush of “taunting Iran”. He said: “Like the similar campaign for war with Iraq, this effort seems to be designed to find a casus belli, perhaps by provoking Iran into some action that could justify a military assault.”…

In that same article, they review a Heritage Foundation-funded war game that explored the possibility of bombing strategic positions along with such an action’s aftermath:

…In the meantime, administration officials are studying the lessons of the recent war game, which was set up to devise a way of weathering an economic storm created by war with Iran. Computer modelling found that if Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz, it would nearly double the world price of oil, knock $161 billion off American GDP in a single quarter, cost one million jobs and slash disposable income by $260 billion a quarter.

The war gamers advocated deploying American oil reserves - good for 60 days - using military force to break the blockade (two US aircraft carrier groups and half of America’s 277 warships are already stationed close to Iran), opening up oil development in Alaska, and ending import tariffs on ethanol fuel. If the government also subsidised fuel for poorer Americans, the war-gamers concluded, it would mitigate the financial consequences of a conflict.

The Heritage report concludes: “The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes from the blockade.”…

You mean the financial problems within the US. We still get suicide bombers and the rest of the world still has double-priced oil as a result of our rash act, but other than that, everything’s peachy. Fire away!

Of course, the Pentagon’s plans, taking into account that ANY action against Iran is likely to provoke such retaliation, apparently thinks they might as well go for broke, as their standing Iran plan calls for a complete destruction of their military in three days, according to today’s UK Sunday Times:

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

This picture couldn’t get more rosy if he’d declared Iranians would hail us as liberators!

[Zoe]

It’s only an act of war if they drop a few bombs on us, right?

[RTFirefly]

Looks like George Packer is taking the possibility of a September rollout at least semi-seriously:

Barnett Rubin just called me. His source spoke with a neocon think-tanker who corroborated the story of the propaganda campaign and had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”

[marshmallow]

For anyone who wants to read a semi-detailed analysis of different assault options with regards to Iran I might suggest (WARNING: PDF)this report by Plesch and Butcher. I’d also highly recommend Scott Ritter’s “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change,” or listen to his available talks on youtube and C-SPAN (a nice talk with Seymour Hersh is available via his Wiki page, for example).

@RedFury's Link

US Navy aircraft carrier strike forces are deployed off Iran.

We’ve had carrier groups in the Persian Gulf since the early 80s, if not before. Every year there are rotations in and out of the region and when they overlap there are some extra ships. This is usually when the dire predictions of an imminent strike on Iran are made. Is it possible it’ll happen soon? Sure. But this point in particular isn’t a reason to think so, since it’s nothing new.

US Air Force jets and missile systems are deployed in bases in countries bordering or near to Iran.

US B-2 stealth bombers have been refitted to carry 30,000 pound “bunker buster” bombs.

Ditto.

The US government is financing terrorist and separatist groups within Iran.

US Special Forces teams are conducting terrorist operations inside Iran.

This is correct. I believe if that happened to us we would call the country doing so…what was it? Oh yeah, a state sponsor of terrorism. Some may even call it an act of war. Using our logic, Iran has the right to invade the United States, topple our leadership, and institute a new form of government of their choosing.

US war doctrine has been altered to permit first strike nuclear attack on Iran and other non-nuclear countries.

Altered in what way? I believe we’ve always reserved that right, especially with regards to bunker buster tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called usable nukes. As the Democratic POTUS candidates like to say, “nothing is off the table.”

Bush’s war threats against Iran have intensified during the course of this year. The American people are being fed a repeat of the lies used to justify naked aggression against Iraq.

Has it actually intensified? I’d have to see some documentation to believe so. It seems about the same as, say, last year. I could be wrong, and there was the recent holocaust comment from Bush, but I can’t remember a time when he and the rest of the political apparatus weren’t worried about “the Iranian problem.”

In the improbable event that Congress were to make any fuss about Bush’s decision to attack yet another country, the State Department has devised legalistic cover: simply declare Iran’s military to be a “terrorist organization” and go to war under the cover of the existing resolution.

Well, the AUMF is pretty nebulous and gives Bush a lot of leeway. It allows the President:

to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

When Bush conflates every problem in the Middle East into one big bad bogeyman and constantly references 9/11 and terrorism to the high heavens, it’s not purely for domestic consumption. Of course, if push came to shove, this isn’t even really needed – if he wanted, he could bomb any country he wishes for weeks on end before having to report with Congress. But can you imagine the Congress asking for restraint while our service members are taking hostile fire? It’s unthinkable to me. Or what if we put boots on the ground to “help defend the new nation of Khuzestan from the aggression of the Iranians." You support their freedom, don’t ya? Why do you hate liberty? Either way, it’s like a bear trap, where once we’re in we’re stuck and not getting out without a lot of pain and it might involve chewing off our foot.

The “Iran issue” has been created by the Bush administration, not by Iran. Iran, like many other countries, has a nuclear energy program to which it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

As with Iraq, the proliferation issue is at best a red herring. The main issue is regime change and regional transformation. The idea is to institute a massive bombardment by air to perform a decapitation strike and turn Iran’s military to dust, then the populace will rise up and overthrow the theocracy and later invite Americans in for tea. It’s more fantastical than the rose petals the Iraqis were supposed to throw at us, if only for the fact it’s supposed to happen by aerial attack alone (with maybe some special forces operations here and there, but no serious invasion by any means).

As the “decider” has decided that Iran has no such rights, the “decider” decides whether to attack Iran. No one else has any say about it. The people’s representatives are just so much chaff in the wind.

Yes, that’s the luxury of being the POTUS and CinC of the most powerful military in the world. It’s also why we should be extremely careful who we elect to the highest office of the land.
If by “the people’s representatives” that mean Congress, I’m confident they would overwhelmingly support an attack on Iran. They recently voted 96-0 on a Lieberman amendment which pretty much stated flat out that Iran has repeatedly attacked our forces in Iraq and must be dealt with. Of course, there was an addendum at the end saying it shouldn’t be construed as a casus belli. Uh huh.

There was also Senator Webb’s amendment in the Iraqi supplemental earlier this year to prohibit all funding for military action with Iran. Or maybe it required Bush to specifically ask Congress permission before doing so, I forget exactly what happened either way, but the end result was that it was flatly rejected by the Dem leadership.

It’s also impossible to ignore the rhetoric flowing from both sides of the narrow political spectrum represented in D.C. It’s conventional wisdom among the beltway that Iran is a serious threat which must be confronted in some way.

@RedFury

And no, I don’t want to hear any complaints about “blowback” as surely there won’t be any. Iranians? Cowering sheep calmly waiting to be slaughtered.

The main reason I’m skeptical of an imminent bombardment of Iran is due to the blowback. Sure, there are narrow interests in the United States who would stand to benefit, but unlike Iraq the repercussions of attacking Iran could cause serious economic harm to some extremely influential establishments.

Of course, there are scenarios where such a check could fail to rein in such an attack: 1) The administration believes establishing American hegemony in central Asia in the long term is more important to the national security of the United States than the short term economic fall out. That is to say, acting now will be painful, but not as painful as if Iran falls into the sphere of influence of China, India and the other countries in the region establishing local energy networks and political independence from Washington D.C. 2) They believe they have devised a plan wherein the blowback can be minimized. 3) The Bush administration have cut themselves loose and are no longer influenced by said interests with regards to Iran. This could happen in concert with the other points, but it’s worth considering and is somewhat frightening since it could mean a complete ideological meltdown of pure revenge, mafia style. Iran, the thinking goes, was never punished for the Islamic revolution against our puppet, the hostages, and basically the snatching away of an important client state.

[elucidator]

But, boiled down, there are only three reasons to saber-rattle a paranoid. One, you have an exquisite intuitive sense of how far to take it without going so far as to provoke the unexpected, a finely wrought sense based on a thorough understanding of the nature of said paranoid. May we dismiss this prospect out of hand? Moving on, numero two-o, you really do want to start a war, but want the grace of plausible deniability: he spit on my shoes, so I shot him in the belly.

Or, number three, you’re just plain stupid.

[elucidator]

Has anyone considered the multiple benefits possible from a detente with Iran? Just wondering, because there seem to be several obvious areas of shared interest.

First, Iran is Shia, AlQ is virulently anti-Shia. They would make an excellent ally in our struggle in Afghanistan, should we ever decide to revisit that debacle. Second, we might be able to offer them a deal on nukes: we will swear never to attack, scouts honor! So long as Iran doesn’t actually attack us or Israel, they can make all the apocalyptic speeches they like. Bring in China, Russia, India as conferrees, and as much guarantors as they may wish.

If Iran wants to build a pipeline north to China or Russia, we can offer them Halliburton’s assistance, as a gesture of good will. But if Iran feels no threat from us, they may very well decide to stick to the tried and true Persian Gulf shipping lanes. If the Chinese insist on building a pipeline, the Iranians can shrug and accept, but are not compelled to invest. Tie up Chinese capital, keep them out of mischeif.

Bolster the position of those people in Iran that we really want in power, the moderates, the secular, the sane. For the extremist Iranian Islamist, the enmity of the Great Satan is manna from heaven, its the gift that keeps on giving, they must thank Allah twice a day that he made GeeDub President of the US.

If Iran is not actively hostile to the US, why should we care how much influence it has over Shia Iraqis, which influence is likely to wane if they are not Shia united against the foe, but Persians and Arabs with their own selfish interests. If the Iraqi Shia control the south, they will sell us the oil. If some alliance of Iranian and Iraqi Shia control the south, they will sell us the oil.

Seeking a diplomatic modus vivendi with Iran makes perfect sense. Alas.

[Eolbo]

@elucidator

Seeking a diplomatic modus vivendi with Iran makes perfect sense. Alas.

The Great Decider doesn’t do nuance. Or Diplomacy.

[RedFury]

@marshmallow

We’ve had carrier groups in the Persian Gulf since the early 80s, if not before. Every year there are rotations in and out of the region and when they overlap there are some extra ships. This is usually when the dire predictions of an imminent strike on Iran are made. Is it possible it’ll happen soon? Sure. But this point in particular isn’t a reason to think so, since it’s nothing new.

Cite for the last time the US had three carriers converge on The Persian Gulf – rotations or not:

Stennis, Nimitz and Bonhomme Richard Enter the Persian Gulf

U.S. rotates carrier to Persian Gulf amid rising Iran tensions

The U.S. Navy said Tuesday that it was sending the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf in order to maintain two carriers in the region amid growing tensions with Iran over its alleged support of Iraqi insurgents.

<snip>

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the deployment of the Enterprise was part of a “scheduled swap of carriers as part of the routine deployment.” Currently, the USS Stennis, which arrived in the Middle East in mid-February, and the USS Nimitz are operating in the region.

In March, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he didn’t think there was “any expectation that we will have more than two carrier strike groups in the area.”** But Whitman wouldn’t rule out keeping all three carrier task forces there.**

The U.S. military added a second aircraft carrier earlier this year when tensions between Washington and Tehran peaked.

– bolding mine.

Not business as usual, is it?

Ditto.

Couldn’t possibly be “ditto” when it’s a new bomb specifically designed as to be the most powerful bunker-buster in the world. Makes the MOAB look like a little boy by comparison:

Stealth bombers to get bunker-nobbling weapons

American stealth bombers will soon be equipped to drop the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), the gigantic deep-bunker-blasting bomb currently being developed by the Yanks.

<snip>

The MOP mega-bomb, second heaviest conventional weapon ever built, is said to be able to drill through many metres of earth or concrete protection. Only 20 per cent of the weapon’s weight is explosives; the rest is a hardened metal case. The idea is that the MOP will fall from high altitude and strike its target like a supersonic - or even hypersonic - spear, punching through to explode at the correct depth.

There isn’t much doubt regarding whose air defence the stealth-bombers might fly through, or what valued targets they might hit with their penetrating superbombs.

The uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz is generally thought to be the main point of vulnerability in the Iranian nuclear programme, where weapons-grade metals could be produced. Most analyses - some even publicly available - reckon Natanz is the big target for the US (or Israel) in the event of a move to cripple Iran’s nuke effort.

– bolding mine.

Don’t have the time ATM to go through your other points, but for an answer to change in official American Defense Policy, search for the radical pre-9/11 graduation speech, Bush gave at West point in '01 — and compare it to the PNAC’s mission statement. 90 degree switch, from responding to aggression to preserving the righ to launch “pre-emptive” strikes.

Lastly, and I’ve already done once upthread, take look at the headlines and the way Bush speaks of/to Iran.

More later…if I have time.

Take care.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@RTFirefly

Looks like George Packer is taking the possibility of a September rollout at least semi-seriously:

This bears repeating. George Packer is a serious analyst. Kevin Drum notes that these rumors fly every few months and nothing pans out. Todd Gitlin thinks we should take such worse case scenarios (regarding Bush admin behavior) seriously. Better safe than sorry. Remember who we’re dealing with: does anybody think that failing to plan for post-invasion Iraq was a good idea? Known experts in that field were intentionally passed over, so as to not compromise the rush to war.

I commend BrainGlutton for his early catch.

That said, IntTrade currently puts the probability of airstrikes on Iran at 20% – below the August average, but well above a 5-10% de minimus threshold. Those crying “Conspiracy!” should place a bet. Those who don’t think that airstrikes would be a disaster should review the 2004 wargame sponsored by The Atlantic Magazine.

No worries: within the week the noise either will or will not materialize. I’m guessing “No”, but if I’m wrong expect more articles like this one (London Times)

[Ravenman]

@Measure for Measure

I commend BrainGlutton for his early catch.

Early catch… of what? A rumor? Like that fashion blogger who caught wind that Castro is dead and the Miami police were stifling the news until they could mobilize the riot troops?

Surely you can’t give credit for the beginning of the propaganda campaign against Iran, because the only campaign I can see is one of chatter among bloggers who always think that the next war on Iran is just around the corner, and a few number of others who say that something could happen. In either case, I’m not seeing these reports as examples of particularly good journalism.

[elucidator]

I am leaning towards the idea that the sabre-rattling dance is part and parcel with the propaganda offensive outlined in another thread. The Bushiviks are hoping to focus attention on AlQ ("…being defeated in Anbar!..") and Iran ("…we’ll get tough with them and they’ll back off!..") in order to concoct some victory.

Such schemes are inherently dangerous, of course. But the Bushiviks apparently regard such risk as acceptable.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Spencer Ackerman of TPM Media gives us the lowdown. Cheney is trying to soften up the Pentagon, since the Joint Chiefs think that fighting a third war of choice is nuts.

The AEI is on board. Reuel Marc Gerecht has a sympathetic Newsweek piece; Gingrich and Woolsey are planning speeches and panels (the usual clash of civilization stuff).

More to the point, Bush can claim that since he’s declared Iran to be a terrorist operation, he can claim authority bomb 'em, following the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan. Dubious? Sure, but when have legalities stopped this administration?

That said, bombing odds at IntTrade are only up to 22% now, so there’s no need to panic.

[squeegee]

inTrade wasn’t too close on the 2k6 election predictions. :dubious:

[Ravenman]

@Measure for Measure

More to the point, Bush can claim that since he’s declared Iran to be a terrorist operation, he can claim authority bomb 'em, following the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan. Dubious? Sure, but when have legalities stopped this administration?

It should be noted that the provision mentioned – about the President taking action to prevent terrorism – appears in the preamble of the AUMF and therefore does not carry the force of law. The actual operative part of the resolution requires that the President find that the target of the military operation be connected to the 9-11 attacks in the manner laid out in the law.

If one simply wanted to make the case that the President feels the Constitution gives him sufficient authority to bomb another country, then that’s one thing. But saying that the 9-11 use of force resolution gives him carte blanche to bomb any terrorists is simply inaccurate. And if I haven’t said this before, if the President tried to start yet another war cloaked in 9-11 rhetoric, I think he’d be laughed out of the room and probably straight to the Senate for his trial.

[elucidator]

He might think it well worth the gamble, the view from the bubble, and all. Clearly, he has enormous faith in waving the bloody shirt and the “rally-round-The Leader-in-war!” meme. He might believe he could get away with it, that the Senate won’t act until he presents a fait accompli: total victory in the ME.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

It should be noted that the provision mentioned – about the President taking action to prevent terrorism – appears in the preamble of the AUMF and therefore does not carry the force of law. The actual operative part of the resolution requires that the President find that the target of the military operation be connected to the 9-11 attacks in the manner laid out in the law.

Nope. Link.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

  (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Emphasis added.

@Ravenman

If one simply wanted to make the case that the President feels the Constitution gives him sufficient authority to bomb another country, then that’s one thing.

He does-- the precedents are there aplenty.

…if the President tried to start yet another war cloaked in 9-11 rhetoric, I think he’d be laughed out of the room and probably straight to the Senate for his trial.

Yep.

[Evil_Captor]

@Ravenman

And if I haven’t said this before, if the President tried to start yet another war cloaked in 9-11 rhetoric, I think he’d be laughed out of the room and probably straight to the Senate for his trial.

I’d like to believe that, but the esxperience of helplessly watching Bush get away with one horrible thing after another for six years has worn away any vestige of complacency I might once have possessed.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Not sure if it’s worth commenting now but Ravenman:

Kevin Drum is a blogger for… The Washington Monthly, a tree-based magazine. But he’s a generalist, as is Gitlin (who I linked to because he had decent links). George Packer is a specialist and author of The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq (2005), a respected tome. He writes for the online edition of the New Yorker. Ok, technically they are bloggers, but Packer at least is a journalist.

At any rate, the predictions appear to be gaining strength, judging from my Ackerman link. So I retain my praise for BrainGlutton for his early catch, as well as his appropriate circumspection.

--------- And if I haven’t said this before, if the President tried to start yet another war cloaked in 9-11 rhetoric, I think he’d be laughed out of the room and probably straight to the Senate for his trial.

Well, the Dems got outplayed with regards to FISA this summer, so I wouldn’t underestimate this admin’s tactical skill with Congress and public opinion.

@squeegee

inTrade wasn’t too close on the 2k6 election predictions. :dubious:

I thought they called the Republican loss. http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/election_2006.html

At any rate, those who think that the Bush admin would never ever in a million-gazillion years bomb Iran by March 2008 (or allow Israel to do so) could make a nice pile of loot via Tradesports. Personally, I put the odds at ::checks online:: 20%.