I’m gonna guess octarine. The wizards of the Bush Administration can see whole bunches of things in Iraq that nobody else can. Especially enormous herds of ponies.
Keith Olbermann put it best during his Thursday night broadcast. He referred to the Iraq study group, calling them some of the finest foreign policy minds in America, and said they recommended decreasing troop levels in Iraq and talking to Iran and Syria; instead, Bush has announced increasing troop levels and is threatening Iran and Syria.
Does our president simply not understand English?
I agree RTFirefly. I imagine Iran is focusing most of their goodwill on the Shia since then. It is unclear to me if we disgaree on whether Iran is stirring the pot in Iraq.
The Iraqi government is now backing up the detained Iranians.
(Apparently the office in question is a “liaison office,” not a full consulate.)
Meanwhile, in a probably unrelated development, a rocket was fired at the U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece. No one was injured. Authorities are attributing the attack to a left-wing organization called “Revolutionary Struggle.”
Jeez, I didn’t think there were any Red terrorists left in Europe . . . it’s like a flashback to the '70s . . .
It’s been the plan all along. PNAC pinpointed Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya as threats to be eliminated. North Korea got a mention but was not given the importance that the Middle Eastern nations were.
Khaddafi smelled the napalm and capitulated a while ago. Noises were made in the direction of Syria not too long after the initial ‘victory’ but Bush couldn’t get the ‘coalition of the few’ to go along. So now it’s Iraq with Syria in reserve. I’m convinced that Bush is still hellbent on carrying out the PNAC agenda to neutralize the Middle East. Either that or he is actually insane and is trying to set off the Rapture.
One more of the things that flabbergasts me about all this is that PNAC has had its agenda up for all to see all along and yet people are still surprised when Bush continues to antagonize and threaten the PNAC targets. Can people honestly think it’s coincidence that the plan devised long before Bush was in power is being carried out to the letter by Dub?
I wonder if being a member of Skull & Bones means that you get reduced to same if you cross your brothers’ wishes (commands?).
While recognizing the fact that he is no intellectual giant, I can’t believe that even Bush would be stupid enough to attack Iran without substantial provocation on their part and incontrovertible proof that we didn’t pull any shenanigans to make it look like Iran acted first.
My thinking in 2002/2003:
“While recognizing the fact that he is no intellectual giant, I can’t imagine them lying to us about the presence of WMD in Iraq. They HAVE TO KNOW that it will come out in the end and will have dire consequences for us.”
J.
You do realize, dontcha, that the actual insurgents fighting the US are Sunnies, right? On top of that, I am sure you also know that Sunnies are not on Iran’s “best friends list,” right again? Does it then follow that they would be arming them?
Point being that the US has been fighting the Shiite’s natural enemies for them. And guess where the Shiite’s natural allegiances lie with? Yeah, sure, now The Decider and his Iraqi puppet say they are going to tackle Sadr’s 60,000 strong Militia in the streets of Baghdad. Believe that and I have a beautiful ski-lodge right here in the Caribbean that I’d like to show you. Give you a great deal on it I swear.
Only one winner in this whole clusterfuck. And it ain’t the Mighty US of A.
Take a look: Joe Scarborough: The Coming War with Iran?
I’m sure they are. Hakim has a very close relationship with the Iranians; he was in exile there during the late Saddam years, and they trained his militia. I’m sure that’s still a cozy relationship. For instance, there were those Iranian diplomats that were found when we raided his compound a few weeks back.
I think maybe we got in a semantic misunderstanding when you referred to Iran providing “truckloads of weaponry for insurgent purposes.” Nobody refers to the Shi’ite militias as insurgents, because strictly speaking, they aren’t. The Shi’ite militias are allied with various governmental factions, but are trying to control it, not destabilize it, unlike the Sunnis who are trying to destabilize the government and thus are an insurgency. So I understood your phrasing to mean that the Iranians were helping out the Sunnis in Iraq, while it seems clear now that you meant that the Iranians were helping out somebody or other in Iraq, which they almost surely are.
Yes, they can. I’ve gotten into arguments with quite a few people who simply wave PNAC away as a “conspiracy theory”. “Conspiracy theory” has become the modern version of “It’s just Commie propaganda”.
Um. Yeah. About that. Back in the day, I thought the same about invading Iraq. How many more proofs do you need that Bush is indeed that stupid? Because I’m absolutely convinced. IMHO, the only question now is whether Bush is a complete moron or actually deluded and insane.
Of course, if he hadn’t thus far been able to proceed with the PNAC agenda with impunity, perhaps we wouldn’t be at this point.
Why oh why did that pretzel pop out?
Yes but the PNAC strategy is still (last I checked) sitting there on their website, signed by the cabal, and visible for anyone who wishes to click. Real conspiracies deal in speculation about clandestine events planned in stealth. This is right there in the open.
Oh my head hurts trying to conceive of the kind of brain that could look at all this and dismiss it. It’s beyond my comprehension entirely.
“Surely the United States is not the one being threatening,” she said. “We are not the ones being meddlesome and troublesome in Iraq.”
That’s the funniest damn thing I’ve heard since the bit about no failures, just successes that haven’t happened yet!
Have to admit the same thought crossed my mind the last couple of days.
Does a "liason office"have the same special rights as an embassy?
Hmm. Does an unauthorized act of war constitute a “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?
A while back Bush showed up with a bandage and claimed he had choked on a pretzel and fallen. I’ve always suspected he was just drunk. No evidence, but he has had problems with drinking, and Bush always lies; if he says it was a pretzel, I’m inclined to think it was something else simply because he says it was.
You missed the 2002 pretzel attack?
but he also said:
3 things I got from that scary (Cheney presidency) and silly incident:
- Even there Bush could not tell when he became aware of the problem
- That even at 50 he still does not bother to follow mom’s advice.
- To this day, White House officials declined to release the pretzel’s brand name, needlesly endengering many football viewers! What a dastardly thing to do!
