Despite reassurances by King George that he wants diplomacy to solve things, the rhetoric (and our actions) toward Iran — as well as President Ahmadinejad of Iran's recent comments — are worrying me. There are too many people shaking too many big sticks, and it's difficult to tell whether these are ploys to advance diplomacy or serious threats.

What worries me is that King George has shown too many times in the past that he doesn't give a damn what other people think if God has told him he's right. He'll go with his gut and he'll go with his faith, and he'll ignore or change any hard evidence if it doesn't tell him what he wants it to tell him -- listen to the administration's criticism of the just-released GAO report on Iraq, or the reports that the White House intends to write up General Petraeus's report themselves. Despite growing belief among the citizenry that Iraq was a terrible mistake and despite growing pressure to pull troops out, I can believe that Our Decider would compound his mistake by attacking Iran with the justification that they are undermining our chances of success in Iraq, that they are a nuclear threat that must be quashed, and that they are, after all, part of his Axis of Evil, and Evil must be eliminated.

That's what his faith-based rhetoric has been saying all along. When you deem your enemy to be pure "Evil," you are obliged to destroy them.

We don't have enough troops in Iraq to control that broken country. We absolutely don't have enough troops to also control Iran -- not without a draft. Yeah, we can bomb Tehran into rubble and break their country the way we broke Iraq, but what happens afterward? If we're truly concerned about insurgency and terrorism, how many terrorists will we breed if we send the missiles raining down on yet another Middle Eastern country? I hope Bush means it when he says "I know we're here in Washington (where) prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy." But I don't believe him; he's given us too many lies already.

Color me concerned.

From: [identity profile] buttonlass.livejournal.com


If we're truly concerned about insurgency and terrorism, how many terrorists will we breed if we send the missiles raining down on yet another Middle Eastern country?

What is this "we" of which you speak? Because I don't think "we" can include the president and his men with the likes of us.

From: [identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com


What doubly scares me is that -- after watching the Dems cave to the White House at the end of the last session of Congress -- I have very little confidence that they would muster the courage to oppose an attack on Iran if it were framed (as it will be) as "necessary for the security of our country."

From: [identity profile] lsanderson.livejournal.com

Dems Cave?


Total collapse seems more like it. Biggest bunch of wafflers since the iron was invented. Ms. Klobuchar has gone onto my least appreciated person list.

From: [identity profile] alces2.livejournal.com


I think he could do it. He's not facing re-election. He seems to be even ignoring portions of the Republican party. He seems less and less concerned with the opinions of the majority of US citizens. Actually I would be worried about him doing it close to the next election and saying that the US is really in a bad situation and for the sake of the country he should stay as president despite us having elections because he's aware of all the facets (well he probably wouldn't use that word) of the situation and knows what is really right for the country. Okay, maybe that's unlikely but it has crossed my mind numerous times.

From: [identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com


I don't think that's at all likely -- I have to believe that if a president tried to suspend elections then the Congress and the military (whose oath is to protect the Constitution) would take action.

And if they didn't... well, then America-The-Republic is gone.

From: [identity profile] alces2.livejournal.com


I'm sure you're totally right. It's just a nightmare that comes into my brain now and then, hm paranoid ideation? And I find this (http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070903/cx_crbal_uc/crbal20070903) to amuse me.

From: [identity profile] jdonat.livejournal.com

War Drums and such..


I'm very concerned. We need to watch the aircraft carrier groups. As of now there is only 1 carrier group in the Persian Gulf -headed by the Enterprise. If I see 3 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf area, I get worried. That's a LOT of power projection. 3 Aircraft carriers, each with about 90 aricraft per carrier. I'ts also got a bunch of Aegis cruisers with cruise missles. When they show up, get ready.


From: [identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com

Re: War Drums and such..


I'd agree that at least one more carrier group would need to be in the Gulf as support. But any such movements will be kept as secret as possible until the group's already there...

From: [identity profile] jdonat.livejournal.com

Re: War Drums and such..


It's amazing how much information comes out when a carrier group puts to sea. It's just too doggoned big. The last time that 3 groups were near the Persian Gulf, I saw a bunch of reports on it -the first coming from Daily Kos. Someone there checks up on the deployment of the carriers, they're all on the Web at navy.mil. It's not super detailed, but you can infer most of the time where they are.

.