Bombing and invading are not the same thing. Don’t confuse them. Clinton bombed Iraq, he did not invade it.
There’s a big, big difference between INVADING (eg, what we did in Iraq) and BOMBIMG a few key sites. I think the probability of a full-scale invasion of Iran is extremely small. But dropping a few bombs is not out of the question, although I can’t see it being done without approval from Congress.
Obviously, if any preparation is required. Our troop buildup for the Iraq invasion took months. Of course, a bombing raid on Iran could be done from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf and would require only a few hours’ notice.
Bush orders a bombing raid without consulting Congress; it’s over in a few hours; what’s a Pub-controlled Congress gonna do about it? It’s a fait accompli. The question then becomes, how does Congress respond to the resulting situation? I.e., if Iran retaliates by attacking some of our ships in the Gulf . . .
When Clinton bombed the Sudanese asprin factory, did he get congressional permission? I can’t remeber. Of course there’s probably a legal difference between acting against a privately owned factory and a gov’t nuclear instillation, but I imagine the two cases would be somewhat similar.
I’m sure we have enough military assets in Iraq/Afganistan to blow up any number of targets in Iran, so I don’t think that getting stuff into position would take 3 months. Of course gathering intellegence about the targets could take that long (and according to Hersch, we’re doing that), but from the article, that doesn’t sound like what Ritter is talking about. Instead, Ritter makes it sound like they have a plan ready to go, and that Bush is O.King it. Seems unlikely to me, but perhaps someone who knows more about how such things are done will chime in.
I don’t remember either. IIRC, it is at least expected that the prez will consult with (but not seek approval from) Congressional leaders from both parties on the relavent committees (eg, Senate Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee).
The actual quote is: (Italics mine)
I don’t doubt that we are getting ready for airstrikes. Doesn’t take a Kreskin to see that one coming. But an invasion? Nah.
As for the phonied election results, it sounds like Mssr.Ritter is just borrowing a line from the DNC. Some people seem to think Bush has some fell powers to manipulate election at his whim, what with altering results by a certain percantage hither and yon. Of course, as is the case with the wild-eyed claims of election fraud here, no evidence is offerred, just accusations and hearsay.
For the same reason that, if two years ago I had postulated, “Bush was right about Subject X, why wouldn’t he be right about WMDs?” I would have been laughed out of the thread.
Further, be well aware that a person can be wrong without being a liar. I’m referring to Ritter… he may very well believe his words to the letter. Doesn’t make him right.
On the other hand, the only thing that can make him right is if bombs do fall in June. If the administration just wanted to be a pack of dicks (well, more so, in the eyes of many), they just have to hold off the fireworks for a couple weeks. “See? See? Ritter’s full of shit! We’re bombing in JULY! Take that, you stupid liberals, hahahahaha!”
Well it’s not like Ritter has ever taken a ridiculous position, that seemed absolutely moronic and far outside of the conventional wisdom – and was proved right , right?
Well … it’s not like he could do it twice … right?
FTR IMO: “manipulating” the elections? No. I do wonder though if there is a cop out (less inflammatory) definition of “manipulating”.
Bombing Iran in June? Probably not that dramatically – I am sure a number of scenarios have been planned out … if X happens then Y, followed by Z. Could one scenario possibly be “If by June 21st there is no movement by Iran and Iraq is the same and the political stars are aligned we will hit the facilities?” Maybe. But there is no locked into “plan”.
Well, the quote is, “He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials “cooked” the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.” Implying that the official vote count does not match the actual vote count. I’m skeptical about that, because the official count is not exactly favorable to U.S. interests. If Negroponte were meddling with the count, wouldn’t he have produced an outcome where the Shi’ite UIA did not get an absolute majority in the National Assembly?
Prior to 2002, Scott Ritter (UN weapons inspector) had some credibility. However, we’re now talking about the Scott Ritter who (by his own admission) accepted $400,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji to do a documentary critical of UN sanctions. Shakir al Khafaji received millions of dollars of crude oil vouchers from Saddam and was listed on an honor roll in Uday Hussein’s newspaper (before Saddam pulled the plug).
Scott Ritter’s credibility is gone.
How does that hurt his credibilty?
Well, you do see the clear conflict of interest that existed, correct?
Unless you meant that the whole thing is somewhat moot now that sanctions are lifted and the Oil for Food scandal unveiled.
And good catch on the attack vs. invade, Brutus. I didn’t think of that.
I just don’t see a conflict of interest anyway. If he was expressing his real opinion, what’s the problem? He had no legal or moral obligation not to criticize UN Sanctions (and I think his criticisms were correct, by the way) and there’s no reason to think that Ritter knew anything about al Khafaj receiving oil vouchers from Iraq at the time.
Incidentally, I caught the invasion-bombing thing before Brutus did. Let’s give credit where credit is due. 
A man loses credibility when he does a 180 on his opinions overnight after accepting money from the person he is investigating.
Cite that he did a 180 on his opinion?
Maybe it was only a 177 or 178.
Yes, Brutus, good catch, except that the full quote is, well, ridiculous, whether he said attack, invade, or buttfuck Iran, because he calls it ridiculous, and in the next breath says that we can’t rule it out.
However, if any of you folks haven’t learned this one yet, here’s a bit of advice: Never trust a Republican without a cite. Or, paraphrasing a famous Republican: “Don’t trust, and verify.”
Don’t trust that one? How about Dickie Scaife’s own rag:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/national/s_306577.html
No? How about Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html
Yeah, good catch Neurotik and Diogenes the Cynic. Perhaps not cynical enough. You will learn, son. You will learn.
From the linked CNN article:
No, Magiver, this story, by itself, does not detract from Ritter’s credibility. Maybe the money he took from the businessman (not here named as al Khafaji, BTW; and the linked New York Post article on al-Khafaji does not mention Ritter, so I don’t see how you’re connecting these two stories) was, in his mind, necessary financing for a message he was already committed to getting out. If you want to make a movie with a message, you seek out support from like-minded donors – happens all the time, no conflict of interest is present. BTW, was the documentary in question ever made?
So if a President gives money to a journalist to front his message then the journalist retains his credibility?
I don’t see your thought process here. A journalist has to remain unattached to a story or credibility is lost. Getting money from Saddam Hussein to declare him in good standing is about as detached as you get.