He listens to his Generals... unless they say something he disagrees with, in which case he will just replace them with someone who will tell him what he wants.

ODDwhun: He listens to his Generals... unless they say something he disagrees with, in which case he will just replace them with someone who will tell him what he wants.

He's also for state's rights, until he isn't. And against nation building, until he's for it.

Time to send him another gift order of pretzels.

There's a sneaky (and admittedly tin-foil hatted) suspicion on my part that there is a calculus going on here to make sure that we're either in or on the threshold of aggression with Iran-something that Fallon has dug his heels in and fought vehemently against-as we near the November election, to help give the edge to John McCain.

1) That sentence is a crime against the English language. This one sentence has eight prepositions, two clauses, a passive voice, the words tin-foil hat, suspicion, calculus and threshold.

2) How does bombing Iran in September "give the edge" to McCain?

Blues_X: ODDwhun: He listens to his Generals... unless they say something he disagrees with, in which case he will just replace them with someone who will tell him what he wants.

He's also for state's rights, until he isn't. And against nation building, until he's for it.

Time to send him another gift order of pretzels.

Yeah, good thing we didn't elect a flip-flopper in '04.

NewportBarGuy: If he fires Adm. Fallon, a squadron from the U.S.S. Eisenhower might accidentally drop a full load of JDAMs on the White House lawn.

The man is HIGHLY respected in the Naval community. He's a sharp cookie.

I'd like to think our military leaders didn't get where they are by being yes-men. Whether I agree with them or not: we rely on their skills and expertise. I certainly don't want to make the calls they have to.

Cry "Havoc!" and let loose the dogs of war, boys and girls.
I still remember Fred Barnes (editor of The Weekly Standard and Fox News Neo-Con cheerleader) saying over a year ago that on his last day in office Bush should bomb Iran without any authorization...it even shocked his sidekick Mort Kondracke.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he did it, the neo-cons probably figure that with another war on our hands that America would vote for McCain-who's biggest accomplishment as a vet was being locked in a cage for years.

angryjd: 2) How does bombing Iran in September "give the edge" to McCain?

Military action tends to rally the citizenry. McCain, being the hawk/soldier/POW will get a boost as the most "experienced" to be C-in-C. By the time Joe Sixpack figures out he's been duped (again), McCain will be in office.

At least, that one theoretical scenario behind the idea that McCain would benefit.

1/19/09, 1:00am: US begins major military action against Iran, calls it Operation Shock & Awe 2: More Shockier

NewportBarGuy: Diogenes: I'd like to think our military leaders didn't get where they are by being yes-men.

Many of them do, this guy didn't. It was a big deal for a Naval officer to be given command of, basically, ground forces. That means he had strong backing from the Army and Marine Corps to get that spot. Not unanimous, as traditional flag officers do not trust a Navy guy commanding ground forces.

Guys's the real deal. Combat tested and very well studied in foreign policy and tactics. Dumping him would be a clear signal that we are planning some kind of first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

This

"Pleasure of the President"

Get ready for a resurgence of this phrase in the right wing blogodome.

Is Shrub just not connected to reality at all? Fighting imaginary wars aint going to help the US a hell of a lot, and we are in a real sucky position right now.

How do folks not see this? Ugh...

elffster: Is Shrub just not connected to reality at all?

It's called strategery

NewportBarGuy: Diogenes: I'd like to think our military leaders didn't get where they are by being yes-men.

Many of them do, this guy didn't. It was a big deal for a Naval officer to be given command of, basically, ground forces. That means he had strong backing from the Army and Marine Corps to get that spot. Not unanimous, as traditional flag officers do not trust a Navy guy commanding ground forces.

Guys's the real deal. Combat tested and very well studied in foreign policy and tactics. Dumping him would be a clear signal that we are planning some kind of first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Guys who have managed to make out a reputation like this absolutely blow me away. If you think about all of the decisions, and logical thinking regarding international policies and tendencies, and realize that you're dealing with the lives of real people, it's scary.

I applaud them.

Happy to be corrected, but...According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12),




I'm not sure how much weight I'm going to place on an article from Esquire.

I_Lost_My_Other_Username: elffster: Is Shrub just not connected to reality at all?

It's called strategery

Ok, I'll bite...what stratagem involves wasting Trillions of dollars over nothing?

/My Pokemons, let me show you them..

GWLush: NewportBarGuy: Diogenes: I'd like to think our military leaders didn't get where they are by being yes-men.

Many of them do, this guy didn't. It was a big deal for a Naval officer to be given command of, basically, ground forces. That means he had strong backing from the Army and Marine Corps to get that spot. Not unanimous, as traditional flag officers do not trust a Navy guy commanding ground forces.

Guys's the real deal. Combat tested and very well studied in foreign policy and tactics. Dumping him would be a clear signal that we are planning some kind of first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

This

That.

And here's the daily fear-mongering drumbeat of the left:

Iran! Bush will attack Iran! McCain will attack Iran! Iran! Bomb Iran! Iran will be bombed! Look out: They're about to bomb Iran! Any day now, Bush will bomb Iran! If you vote for McCain, he'll bomb Iran! Watch out! Iran! Iran! Iran! An attack on Iran is imminenet! Any day now, they'll bomb Iran! Our sources tell us that the U.S. will bomb Iran no later than July, 2004 January, 2005 August, 2005 December 2006 May, 2007 before the election in 2008 as soon as McCain is sworn in!

And so on, day after day, week after week, year after year. It's the silly paranoia that just won't go away. It's getting old.

elffster

Strategery. Pronounced Stra-tee-ger-re. It's a joke like nukular.

AwCrap: Cry "Havoc!" and let loose the dogs of war, boys and girls.
I still remember Fred Barnes (editor of The Weekly Standard and Fox News Neo-Con cheerleader) saying over a year ago that on his last day in office Bush should bomb Iran without any authorization...it even shocked his sidekick Mort Kondracke.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he did it, the neo-cons probably figure that with another war on our hands that America would vote for McCain-who's biggest accomplishment as a vet was being locked in a cage for years.

This.

Also...

Now looks Boyz; it ain't been dat we 'ad a right propah waaaarrrrggghhhh in a long time. Dis Bush iz good Wahboss an' 'es gonna 'elp make tings all orky agy again!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

If Dumbya fires him now, it'll be just in time for Obama to make him the VP candidate.

/A guy can dream, can't he?

Does this happen before or after the draft that is definitely going to happen along with the invasion of N. Korea?

canyoneer: And here's the daily fear-mongering drumbeat of the left:

Iran! Bush will attack Iran! McCain will attack Iran! Iran! Bomb Iran! Iran will be bombed! Look out: They're about to bomb Iran! Any day now, Bush will bomb Iran! If you vote for McCain, he'll bomb Iran! Watch out! Iran! Iran! Iran! An attack on Iran is imminenet! Any day now, they'll bomb Iran! Our sources tell us that the U.S. will bomb Iran no later than July, 2004 January, 2005 August, 2005 December 2006 May, 2007 before the election in 2008 as soon as McCain is sworn in!

And so on, day after day, week after week, year after year. It's the silly paranoia that just won't go away. It's getting old.

You really think there won't be war if McCain is elected?

canyoneer: And so on, day after day, week after week, year after year. It's the silly paranoia that just won't go away. It's getting old.

Perhaps if Bush didn't make it a point to mention Iran in almost every foreign policy speech that he gives, the paranoia would subside...We just learned our lesson from the drumbeat for war in Iraq in 2002.

Massa Damnata: Happy to be corrected, but...According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12),
I'm not sure how much weight I'm going to place on an article from Esquire.

Wait...what?

Sorry got a little distracted...oooh shiny things!

ThatGuyGreg: 1/19/09, 1:00am: US begins major military action against Iran, calls it Operation Shock & Awe 2: More Shockier Electric Boogaloo

FTFY

sigdiamond2000: "Pleasure of the President"

Get ready for a resurgence of this phrase in the right wing blogodome.

Gah. They use it like it's a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Just because the President can excercise his prerogative doesn't make him immune from criticism of it. Canning your managers because they're not happy puppets is fair game for scrutiny.

What is Iran doing again?

And he rightfully should! Since when in our Constitutional checks and balances is their an Admiral?

Just a thought, but maybe a Admiral got placed in charge to give CENTCOM better flexibility in dealing with Iran, peacefully or otherwise. He's not running the ground war. If he is replaced the only people who will notice are the Iranians.

canyoneer: And here's the daily fear-mongering drumbeat of the left:

Iran! Bush will attack Iran! McCain will attack Iran! Iran! Bomb Iran! Iran will be bombed! Look out: They're about to bomb Iran! Any day now, Bush will bomb Iran! If you vote for McCain, he'll bomb Iran! Watch out! Iran! Iran! Iran! An attack on Iran is imminenet! Any day now, they'll bomb Iran! Our sources tell us that the U.S. will bomb Iran no later than July, 2004 January, 2005 August, 2005 December 2006 May, 2007 before the election in 2008 as soon as McCain is sworn in!

And so on, day after day, week after week, year after year. It's the silly paranoia that just won't go away. It's getting old.

Aren't you the dude who constantly points out that the US has almost no choice but to expand out little military adventure in the middle east in order to secure the oil reserves?

Usually it's accompanied by a cute little picture of people driving to work on a highway.

I always enjoy those.

Diogenes: sigdiamond2000: "Pleasure of the President"

Get ready for a resurgence of this phrase in the right wing blogodome.

Gah. They use it like it's a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Just because the President can excercise his prerogative doesn't make him immune from criticism of it. Canning your managers because they're not happy puppets is fair game for scrutiny.

You shouldn't criticize a president while troops are in combat. Well, except if your a Republican and that president is Bill Clinton then do what McCain did and bash him on the floor of the senate as long as you can and when a Republican become president then criticize others for doing the same thing you did.

AwCrap: Cry "Havoc!" and let loose the dogs of war, boys and girls.
I still remember Fred Barnes (editor of The Weekly Standard and Fox News Neo-Con cheerleader) saying over a year ago that on his last day in office Bush should bomb Iran without any authorization...it even shocked his sidekick Mort Kondracke.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he did it, the neo-cons probably figure that with another war on our hands that America would vote for McCain-who's biggest accomplishment as a vet was being locked in a cage for years.

That's still more qualification than Obama.

If McCain is elected, the war will go on as before. If Obama is elected, the war will go on as before. if Hillary is elected, the war will go on as before.

As to any given President harping on Iran in foreign policy speeches, that's standard fair going back to Jimmuh Cah-tuh. In case nobody noticed it yet, the U.S. has been wagiing a cold war against iran since 1979. Every president since has regularly bad-mouther Iran. It's as traditional as the annual turkey pardon, the photo-op with the Superbowl winner, or the State of the Union speech.

But in the pathetic domestic political propaganda war, it's become the gift that keeps giving for leftist rabble-rousers. Every two months, some "intrepid investigative journalist" "uncovers" Bush's "secret plan" to attack Iran. Dire predictions are made, movements of U.S. Navy vesseils is studied for nefarious clues, and when the breathelssly-predicted zero hour passes, nothing is said. Then two months later, like clockwork, the dark rumors begin again, and the leftist political websites work themselves into a frenzy, and much money is raised as the dire specter of War With Iran (dun-dun DUUUUUUUNNNNN) is once again trumpeted.

Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

Why would the U.S. bomb Iran? No reason. Give me any good reason why the U.S. would bomb Iran, and why now and not all those other times?

TheGreyPiper: That's still more qualification than Obama.

So the best case Republican election scenario is to have Hillary get the DNC nomination and have Bush start another war in the Middle East?

Did someone drop LSD in my coffee this morning or are things really that farked up in this country?

elffster: Is Shrub just not connected to reality at all? Fighting imaginary wars aint going to help the US a hell of a lot, and we are in a real sucky position right now.

How do folks not see this? Ugh...

Jeez, since when did all the "liberals" find democracy so odius? If they really cared about liberty they'd stand up for the drive to expand freedom independece from terror in the middle east.

And here's the daily fear-mongering drumbeat of the left:

Iran! Bush will attack Iran! McCain will attack Iran! Iran! Bomb Iran! Iran will be bombed! Look out: They're about to bomb Iran! Any day now, Bush will bomb Iran! If you vote for McCain, he'll bomb Iran! Watch out! Iran! Iran! Iran! An attack on Iran is imminenet! Any day now, they'll bomb Iran! Our sources tell us that the U.S. will bomb Iran no later than July, 2004 January, 2005 August, 2005 December 2006 May, 2007 before the election in 2008 as soon as McCain is sworn in!

And so on, day after day, week after week, year after year. It's the silly paranoia that just won't go away. It's getting old.".

As opposed to the mindless paranoid blather and fearmongering of the right? Please

canyoneer: Why would the U.S. bomb Iran? No reason. Give me any good reason why the U.S. would bomb Iran, and why now and not all those other times?

I can't think of any reason for the US to attack Iran either. But I've been wrong before.

Don't worry, as soon as Obama is President he will call Iran and invite them for a nice chat. Because we all know the Iranian's really want to love the "Great Satan", hell, Obama even says he'll offer them investments in their country. The Iranians will want that because investments will give the "Great Satan" greater influence with the Iranian people and bring easier access to western values.
I can't believe that curious monkey in the Whitehouse hasn't thought of this yet.

OneBrightMonkey

Aren't you the dude who's been told repeatedly that Iran's oil production has peaked? Invading Iran for oil would be like invading Texas for oil - stupid. If you're going to invade a country for oil, it makes sense to invade one that ACTUALLY HAS A LOT OF OIL LEFT.

glaurunge: Jeez, since when did all the "liberals" find democracy so odius?

The Iranians elect their president.

glaurunge: elffster: Is Shrub just not connected to reality at all? Fighting imaginary wars aint going to help the US a hell of a lot, and we are in a real sucky position right now.

How do folks not see this? Ugh...

Jeez, since when did all the "liberals" find democracy so odius? If they really cared about liberty they'd stand up for the drive to expand freedom independece from terror in the middle east.

Ever see sunlight from under that bridge? It doesnt burn, not really...try some, sometime.

Shaggy_C: glaurunge: Jeez, since when did all the "liberals" find democracy so odius?

The Iranians elect their president.

For that matter, so did the Soviets. I don't think they were what we'd call 'fair' elections however....

Massa Damnata: Happy to be corrected, but...According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12),

I'm not sure how much weight I'm going to place on an article from Esquire.

Esquire has interviewed former Administration intelligence sources about an impending strike on Iran in the past.

Weaver95: For that matter, so did the Soviets. I don't think they were what we'd call 'fair' elections however....

Soviets won with 99% of the vote in all cases. Not exactly the same thing:

Candidates Votes 1st round % Votes 2nd round %
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani 6,211,937 21.13 10,046,701 35.93
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 5,711,696 19.43 17,284,782 61.69
Mehdi Karroubi 5,070,114 17.24 - -
Mostafa Moeen 4,095,827 13.93 - -
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf 4,083,951 13.89 - -
Ali Larijani 1,713,810 5.83 - -
Mohsen Mehralizadeh 1,288,640 4.38 - -
Blank or invalid votes 1,224,882 4.17 663,770 2.37
Total (turnout 62.66% and 59.6%) 29,400,857 100 27,959,253 100

Why can't Bush just hold his breath when he doesn't get his way, like all the other children?

Tyee: Don't worry, as soon as Obama is President he will call Iran and invite them for a nice chat. Because we all know the Iranian's really want to love the "Great Satan", hell, Obama even says he'll offer them investments in their country. The Iranians will want that because investments will give the "Great Satan" greater influence with the Iranian people and bring easier access to western values.
I can't believe that curious monkey in the Whitehouse hasn't thought of this yet.

Actually, yeah. Iran craves nothing more than international recognition on the world stage - particularly from the USA. In fact, it made strong overtures for peace - which included a cessation of support for Hizbollah/Hamas - if the USA would come on board. The Bushies rebuffed them, preferring to demonise Iran.

*SIGH*

Sometimes you just have to hit rock bottom before you can start to improve.

Shaggy_C: Candidates Votes 1st round % Votes 2nd round %
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani 6,211,937 21.13 10,046,701 35.93
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 5,711,696 19.43 17,284,782 61.69
Mehdi Karroubi 5,070,114 17.24 - -
Mostafa Moeen 4,095,827 13.93 - -
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf 4,083,951 13.89 - -
Ali Larijani 1,713,810 5.83 - -
Mohsen Mehralizadeh 1,288,640 4.38 - -
Blank or invalid votes 1,224,882 4.17 663,770 2.37
Total (turnout 62.66% and 59.6%) 29,400,857 100 27,959,253 100


Of course you can be on the ballot with the proper approval.

canyoneer: Why would the U.S. bomb Iran? No reason. Give me any good reason why the U.S. would bomb Iran, and why now and not all those other times?

If we had had MOP-ready B-2s online at Diego Garcia prior to the NIE report leak, I think we would have done it. The reasoning is simple, though not necessarily "good". Bush believed his legacy will be the Middle East, and he had mentioned several times that he would not let the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities be left to the next administration.