Um…right. Here is a hint though…if you have to search that deep to confirm your supposed propaganda blitz, its probably not working very well. I’m not sure what you thought you were proving there…but to me it proves pretty much that the whole thing is lame. Hell, the Kennedy conspiricy is more intersting.
Carry on though.
-XT
It failed, therefore it didn’t happen?
Hey, don’t look at me. I’m the one who thinks we should impeach Bush and Cheney because a one-in-five chance of an unprovoked attack on Iran is too big a risk for our country to take.
Like people keep saying, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
How about, impeachment for separating a petulant child and a crazy old man from the world’s most potent arsenal?
I’m all for getting us through the current crisis in one piece, then worrying about what future Congresses will do with the precedent. Besides, we already have a bad precedent that’s not even nine years old.
I don’t agree with your not agreeing. 
Since the AUMF is also to prevent future attacks, it makes no sense to say it’s OK to use force against that group (or those groups) who attacked us on 9/11/01, but if there is another group about to attack us just go ahead and let them. But let me ask you this: Whose interpretation do you think Bush would side with, and isn’t that what really matters in this hypothetical discussion?
And let’s remember that, after all, we both agree that Iran is not a threat to the US (at least not now) and that Congress would not stand for an invasion of that country per the Iraq invasion.
No worries. I’ve been called much worse here.
I went to Google News and typed “Iran”. They were all on the first page.
Actually Google News shows a lot of promising news out of Iran. They freed a captured reporter, a moderate was elected to a key government post, and they are planning on building a national center for human rights and cultural diversity.
Which makes the DEFCON 3 stuff in the articles I linked to before all the more confusing.
If anyone – Al Qaeda, Mexico, the Pope, little green men from the moon – were on the verge of attacking us, no president would need authorization from Congress to take action to stop the attack. What the AUMF does is allow the president to go out and attack those who are somehow linked to the 9/11 attacks so that they are incapable of attacking the US. It’s like the difference between preemptive and preventative war: the former need not be authorized by Congress before the President acts, the latter is within Congress’ war powers.
And as far as whose opinion matters, I think what counts more is what the law really says. One could ask, whose opinion really matters on issues of torture, wiretapping, and anything else? If we answer only the President’s opinion really matters, then we’re no longer a nation of laws. I’m not willing to concede that.
Well, you know, they didn’t really try very hard this time compared to their efforts with Iraq. Kind of a disappointment…
-XT
Thinking about it, that could be the answer to both our viewpoints.
The Bushiviks may be more interested in building excuses for the “difficulties” in Iraq. Interference from Iran would be just one point in the propaganda effort, along with blaming the GAO for being too strict and unfair in their terms. And shifting the emphasis from the failure of the national government to the wonderful, marvelous, simply terrific progress in Anbar.
If they had struck a chord with that sabre-rattling speech…if it had garnered a lot of attention and support…they might very well have carried it further. As it happens, it landed with a dull “thud!”.
So, yeah, it could be a candy mint, but its still a breath mint.
Like I said to **BG **earlier, this is all self-fulfilling prophecy. If Bush invades Iran, that proves he was right. If Bush doesn’t, then it proves the propaganda campaign was a failure. Nonsense.
What is being prophesied is not the propaganda campaign’s success, but its existence.
If the Ackerman article is correct, we’re at the inside-the-beltway stage now.
Look, there will be no fireworks over the next couple of weeks, since Petraeus has to flog his cooked surged figures. Again, the Joint Chiefs are the main audience for the Iran push; the rest of us have to make do with stories about Potemkin villages and wide stances.
I’ll note that all sources, including BrainGlutton, characterized this anonymous report from a conservative think tank with circumspection and restraint. Which was appropriate.
Could be. Or “Noisy data”: it might be tricky to definitively ID this.
But I still think that it’s worth discussing. And my underlying point remains: with this administration, we can’t rule out the possibility of a boneheaded “Surgical strike” against Iranian assets, an action which would be a disaster for US national interests. Intrade (…22%!) provides but one piece of evidence.
No. What is being prophesied is an invasion of Iran, prefaced by a “propaganda” campaign. If there is no invasion, I don’t want to hear any nonsense along the lines of: Well, there wasn’t an invasion because the propaganda campaign didn’t work.
Wrong. Read the OP.
Highlights mine.
GEARING UP FOR A NEW WAR IN IRAN
Tick, Tock …Michael Ledeen on The Iranian Time Bomb.
US more eager than Europe for military strikes on Iran: survey
Yeah, I’ll say someone’s not looking. Plus remember, Sept’s just started and you have that bit of spin (AKA the Petraeus Report) to deal with first.
But to say that the belligerent rhetoric hasn’t increased…is to close ones eyes to same.
Well, if a former city councilman for Niagara Falls thinks we’re on the path for war with Iran, it MUST be true! How could I have been so foolish?
Seriously, half of your news stories are written by those opposing or taking no position on war with Iran. It’s silly to say that those stories are examples of belligerent rhetoric, because they are advocating the exact opposite of what you’re implying they are.
I know I’ve given up the excessive use of smilies but…Pat Buchanan?!?
:rolleyes:
-XT
Missed this:
If thats all the further its gone so far, how can they have a hope in hell of rolling this thing out before, you know, GW is history? I mean, really guys…
I’m missing something here. I thought we were talking about Iran. Regardless of if Petraeus ‘cooked’ figures are good or bad…well, what difference does it make? Its not going to magically give us fresh troops or logistical supplies in theater. If we are talking invasion then it makes no difference, unless you think anyone is so divorced from reality that they think we can simply redirect our armies in Iraq into Iran. I assure you, the Joint Chiefs AREN’T that divorced from reality.
If we are talking air strikes then again it makes no difference what Petraeus’s report says as we STILL won’t be using our armies in Iraq…it will be the fleet.
Well, what the hell…lets give it until the end of September, ehe? Then when no phantom rollout of propaganda occurs we can give it until December, just to be safe. When nothing happens by then, we can see what Feb. and March look like. Nada? Well, there is always the spring…hope and all that. Perhaps they will have got things beyond the beltway by…how is July of next year looking?
-XT