Well, that’s not quite the same since** RA** was referring to international agreements rather than domestic ones.
But, that’s about executive orders. Executive orders are unilaterally issued by the POTUS. Of course the POTUS is free to change those, whether his own or a predecessor’s (whether he gets to keep the change secret is another question). An agreement with a foreign state would be a different matter.
Right. Unsourced reporting by leftist reporters on top secret matters not reported by any other media should be taken at face value; but a quote (which, so far as I can tell, was put into context by the Tom Wolfe piece) that the same journalist made racist comments in an apparently pro-Soviet article ought to be regarded as gonzo journalism until further notice.
Some saw the Iranian revolution as being exported to Afghanistan because of the PDPA-Khalq’s problems with Pashtuns. Others thought that President Amin was meeting with CIA agents. I recall that some thought that Afghanistan was going to fold into a Chinese orbit and become an embarrassment to the Soviets. The idea that the Soviets required a buffer along its border from all the terrible countries out there was very popular. Now that I think about it, it reminds me of how the Bush Administration came up with a million different BS reasons why Saddam was a threat to the US.
Yes. Invited. Do you realize that as soon as the Speznaz arrived in Kabul, they proceeded to execute the President of Afghanistan, Hafizullah Amin? Keep in mind that Amin was obsessed with the idea that the KGB was trying to assassinate him during his brief time in office (even paranoids can be right), and that Mohammad Taraki, the PREVIOUS president of Afghanistan (who was in fact murdered by Amin and his henchman, Karmal) was the one who had been pressing for Soviet military intervention, and this whole invitation thing really ought to be seen as little more than an attempt to propagandize a blatant invasion.
Nothing like a couple of friendly cruise missiles to win hearts and minds.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/07/unger-article/ The neos still have a taste for blood.
Of course they do. It’s not their blood. Somehow it’s never their blood. As long as it’s not their veins that the blood is coming from, the $ will always be more important.
The world would be a better place if the actual leaders of countries went to war, personally, with each other, instead of sending the youth of their nation off to kill each other.
I used to think that same thing until I realized that would leave us with either Wanderlei Silva or Jet Li as the emperor of the planet.
Wonder how W would fare in a caged death-match against Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il?
Are weapons permitted?
Chainsaws, perhaps? 
True, true…
wonders how one applies to the Imperial Gay Harem Corps
Bush never finds a reason to wage peace. He never finds a reason to talk. Just shoot.
Used to be. Somewhere along the line, they figured out how to sell the concept that they were too important to risk.
Oh wait… From the same article, "In a statement received by Asia Times Online from Feinstein’s office, the senator said she “has not received any briefing, classified or unclassified, from the administration involving any plans to strike Iran”. "
Still awaiting anyone to take my bet. I say Bush will not bomb or attack Iran. Despite the mountain of evidence that has been accumulating for five years that an attack on Iran is just around the corner, nobody has taken me up on a wager. Ah, well, I can dream.
We all thought the invasion of Iraq was too stupid an idea to contemplate (at the very least, while we were still quite active participants in Afghanistan)…
Fool me once, shame on you, etc.
An awkward situation. I hope you are right, but to bet against you is to bet that the Bushiviks might commit one of the most colossal blunders of international history. Which might seem far fetched if they had not just committed one of etc. etc.
Somebody seems intent on keeping this possibility fresh in our minds. Mr Bolton comes to mind, as well as those sombre thinkers who nod their heads as he speaks hard-headed and realistic truths. Ah, these hard-nosed realists, wherever would we be without them, what great strides we might have missed!..
Even so, it is stupid to tell someone you intend to attack them, it is even more stupid to say so when you don’t! Sabre-rattling is the height of stupidity.
Unless… unless the hopeful prospect is to increase tension to a point where an incident may arise, an opportunity to wave the bloody shirt and let crocodile tears flow over your flag pin.
Is this paranoid thinking? Only if the Bushiviks can be credited with reasonable good sense, if they can be trusted. An “unprovoked attack” would be manna from heaven for GeeDub, it would prove him right, or at least justified. And its easy enough for a sane and reasonable man to believe what is best for him, how much more so for a feckless pissant like GeeDubya?
SO perhaps all this bluster and bravado doesn’t increase, much, the likelihood of the ghastly scenarios. But they sure as hell don’t help avert them. And one is hard pressed for a *good *reason why. Makes all the sense in the world if you want a war, damn little if you want to prevent one.
What do you mean "we,’ kimosabe? Did you seriously think Bush wasn’t going to invade Iraq?
So what does that have to do with the bet?
Err… maybe you haven’t been reading the news, but the White House has never publicly said it was going to attack Iran, and John Bolton doesn’t speak for Bush. Bolton speaks for Bolton’s whacko agenda. He’s criticized the White House a fair bit since he left the UN, so clearly he’s no mouthpiece.
This is just another one of five years’ worth of reports from well-placed insiders that an attack is coming soon. Any day now. Just wait. It’s coming. Just be patient. If anonymous people said it, it must be true. Seriously, any day now. It’s been five years, so an attack is due, right?
A fucking stupid argument. The question isn’t whether the White House can be trusted, or whether they generally have good sense, the question is whether they’re going to bomb Iran. And I say they aren’t. And I’m very confident that I’ll be proven right.
Unless, of course, Mr Bolton is not as independent as you seem to believe. I think, on the other hand, that should Dick Cheney want him to give a high pitched scream, Cheney simply reaches into his pocket and gives Mr Bolton’s testicles a good hard squeeze.
Perhaps he’s a secret Muslim. Perhaps he’s a mind-reading psychic from the future. Perhaps he’s an elephant in disguise. Perhaps he’s a waffle.
Does throwing out unsubstantiated guesses help me prove my point? No? Then why do you think it helps you?
Cockburn is no longer the sole source for this – Seymour Hersh has picked up on it.
Sources remain confidential, but Hersh at any rate has Pulitzer-level credibility as a journalist.
Of course, U.S. support for Balochi separatists in southeastern Iran is bound to complicate our relations with our ally-in-the-GWOT Pakistan, which has its own Balochi separatist movement in its southwest. The Balochi areas are shown in pink on this map.
And then there are the Kurds . . .
