Comments for Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August' »
Posted By jovial 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsThe George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Read Full Story at atimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 274 of 275 Comments
-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This rumor is gaining strength. This administration continually denies the possibility of the fiasco becoming a reality, but more and more are leaking the information. Like a silent protest. We should have been able to impeach these guys long ago. Pelosi, Bush, Cheney, the blood will be on your hands.
Reply-
Neutral
tehranchik1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also note that 3 Iranian soldiers were reported killed in a skirmish with the PJK, an arm of the infamous PKK guerillas that have irritated Turkey for so long. At the same time Bush met with the second in command of the Kurdish government in a low key meeting that didn't get much press. Bush reaffirmed his support for Kurd government in order to stave off any Iranian retribution.
Reply-
Neutral
crghss1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This rumor"
You are so right, a rumor. Since you don't seem to know what a rumor is I thought I'd help you out.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rumor
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You are so right, a rumor. Since you don't seem to know what a rumor is I thought I'd help you out. "
Apparently an Israeli paper reported that one of Bush's high-level advisors told one of the Israeli cabinet members that the invasion was planned out and should be carried out by the end of the year. Not quite as much rumor, but I guess we'll see.
It'll be interesting to see also if he invokes NSPD-51:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05...
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&fi...
http://operationawakening.wordpress.com/2008/05...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So when they do it, of course you'll stop belittling those who
opposed the "rumor' and you'll just taunt them for opposing the action..How defensive of you..
Either way in your eyes Bushwacker can do in wrong, but to the rest of the sane world he's a jackass with stupid policies.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The congress should impeach this guy starting now. We need to stop this madman before he does additional harm to this nation! Why are people still letting this Idiot do as he pleases, he is lame have him removed. Impeach him keep his hands tied until he leaves office. Stop him from thinking whenever he does it hurts us all!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"With the news this morning of Iran holding back on information about it's nuclear program (again) I am not surprised."
Are you crazy. Here is a question, where did we hear this same story before? Iraq idiots, this is nothing new and so many of our citizens are falling for it all over again! God are we really this stupid as a nation?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look at it as the last attempt but he NeoCons to keep control. With Dumya and the Republicans in control we have all the makings of a real true world standoff as Russia could very well become involved. Yes NeoCOns you're gung ho keyboard warrior personas which avoided serving in the war you so fervently supported has left he military short handed. Dumya and his ineptitude has managed to stretch the miltary short. (Against a badn fo rag-tag, dead enders, who are in their last throes, according to you). ALtho it would also allow him to declare a national emergency and postpone the elections. So if a few hundred thousand die as a result, no big deal right, since that allows trhe ineptitude should continue.
Reply-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why would I want to count on it?? It seems regime change WAS happening until the moron in the white house now decided to proclaim Iran part of his axis of evil. That spurred a crackdown on the moderates and reinforced the religious wacks (odd thing Muslim religious whacks seem to be identical in behavior to the Christian religious wacks).
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The sad thing is that Bush actually thinks this will help the GOP hold onto the White House and become part of his legacy. What he fails to realize is that impeachment hearings against Clinton are one of the main reason he was able to slither in under the radar and be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. His own impeachment hearings will be in full swing by mid October if he does this. I don't think he will (because those few remaining allies helping us now in Afghanistan and Iraq will pack up and go home) but if he does, the upside is the certain annihilation of the GOP on Nov 4.
Reply -
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really LIKE the author's name--Muhammad Cohen. But whatever amusement I might derive from his self-contradictory identification is overwhelmed by the poor writing and lack of substance in the article. He really drags up all the old ghosts, but he doesn't adequately back up his central assertion.
Reply-
Neutral
blinkers1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You may well play down the significance of this submission to the board, Oscar, but with your own insight into the situation, and knowing what you know, would you really be surprised to see an American air attack on Iran before November? I doubt it.
And a further massive squandering of lives and material really is no laughing matter, is it.
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.
This was in 2004 - so if Obama were president now we might be reading this same rumor.
Reply-
Neutral
toph19731 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Problem is, this post has zero relevance to today. Why is it that people in this country think that we have some god given right to tell another country what to do? And the hipocrisy we do it with is astounding. We tell other countries that you cannot enrich uranium, yet we still do it. No wonder we have zero credibility in the world.
Brazil is a member of the non-proliferation treaty and they are enriching uranium as well. When the state department was asked about their hipocrisy, they just said that Brazil had stated they were enriching for fuel. Somehow we take the word of a country that is Marxist at best and communist at worst. What a joke.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now we know two things about you - you're old enough to remember those ads in the comic books and you read comic books.
Don't forget the weakling that had sand kicked in his face, bulked up, kicked the bully's butt and ended up with the hot girl in the one piece bathing suit.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please sight your source Klarissa...i would very much like to read this for myself. And "one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs." Is not the same as will which is what we are talking about now, not back in 2004, loads of people said things in 2004 that they have had a mind change on because they now know that Bush and his gang lied! So if true i still don't see the point this is 4 years old, and we all know that they lied about all of this!
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure this is my original source, but this is one:
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/11/01/obama-s...
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oscar
He changed his name - he was Eliot Cohen before he changed his first name to Muhammad
This article explains his name and his prior work:
http://www.jewishtimesasia.org/content/view/100...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
mark-stevens1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WMD's... After watching news stories on the next generation of cars, 90 miles per gallon or better. You begin to realize that one day the world will stop buying oil from those wacky Arabs, and they can go back to their tents and camals, and leave us alone!!
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
". After watching news stories on the next generation of cars, 90 miles per gallon or better. You begin to realize that one day the world will stop buying oil from those wacky Arabs, and they can go back to their tents and camals, and leave us alone!!"
Interestingly, though, the American car companies are using Hybrid technology not to increase MPG/efficency but to increase overall HP. I guess it just shows you that the average American man would rather find a way to make himself feel more self important or make up for that tiny peepee rather than save money and ween America from dependence upon Oil.
Reply -
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and they can go back to their tents and camals, and leave us alone!!"
About as dumb as saying the Americans can go back to ridin' the range and shootin' at Injuns. Believe it or not, Cletus, much of the Middle East has got cities, and roads, and cars and trucks and even indoor plumbing.
And beyond that, if you followed such things, you would know that much of the world HAS been driving fuel efficient vehicles that get up to 80 MPG. But they don't get into the USA, nope, nosir.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
mark-stevens1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
... or April of 2007???
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/01/15/...
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You might have an oil well fire. Nothing particularly new about that. Red Adair made a name (and a fortune) for himself putting out such fires. http://www.redadair.com/
To be frank, however, I have zero interest in seeing Iran nuked. A couple well placed MOABs would get their attention quite nicely, IMHO.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The issue of impeachment is not one that would have done any good for us. Pelosi was correct in not moving down that path. Impeachment still leaves Bush in office unless convicted in the senate. No president has ever been convicted so effort and money spent to impeach, as much as I would love to see it, would be wasted.
It takes 3/4 of the US Senate votinng YES to convict. With 49 from Bush's party there is no change of getting that vote unless he does something much worse than he has already done.
If you understand that aspect you would understand why there is no action to impeach. Look what happened to Clinton. Years of investigation and not acting on needed legislation and when the senate voted he was not convicted so we spent all that time and all that money for what purpose. To make republicans look good to their base nothing more. That kind of money wasting we do not need.
Reply-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whether it was not sound political strategy has nothing to do with it. If impeachable offenses occured then impeachment hearings are in order. To turn our back on this responsibility and call it too expensive or to put our political aspirations ahead of it, is a disgrace to this country. It also sets precedents that will allow our future Presidents to challenge us when they commit impeachable offenses and crimes.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't believe people are looking at the political aspects of this.
Hello, we attack Iran. Russia will come into it. We have the start of WWIII. Bush wants that no doubt. I would not want to go down in the history of man kind as the idiot who started WWIII. Because I wanted to bring about the destruction of most of man kind.
What a complete lack brain use by those who support this crap.
Reply-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, why do righties continue to claim defeat as victory? Reality dopes have it problems for you guys and you continue to want to supress the facts especially when they make your current set of talking points look like a script from Seinnfeld.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive61 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cloud151 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have some doubts over the credibility of this article. Too many "sources" and not enough names. If the senator's articles come out in the paper then it will be proven credible. But if they don't, then the chances are it is false.
But in the case of it being true, there will be some real problems. *starts packing for Canada*
Reply -
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can anybody call time out?
Aren't our soldiers carefully tiptoeing through poppy fields in Afghanistan?
Don't both Maliki and Al Sadr have strong links with Iran?
We have already bitten off more than we can chew.
Baseball players chew.
They say the best ones can see the stitches on the ball as they swing.
Does anybody have an eye on the ball?
Stop-Loss
Our Kids, our Money, for what?
I totally respect the conservative point of view;
I just can not understand how stuff like this fits into it.
Reply-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
flyonthewallzz- I understand conservative thinking and most times respect it, the only problem is the present administration is not what I would call conservative and that is sort of represented in a poll I saw today where only 68 percent of republicans support the pres.
As for the attack on Iran maybe President Bush wants to leave his mark in history as the leader who made the worlds biggest mistake.
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now if we could just get the people here who claim to be conservative to understand that we will have made some progress. They have their own new liberal version of "conservative".. (anybody who questions Bush can't be a conservative)
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where there's smoke there's fire.
Bush himself said that he intended to have us so embedded in the middle east that the next president would have no hope of getting us out, this will probably be his way of accomplishing it.
A truly evil man.
Reply-
Neutral
crghss1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Bush himself said that he intended to have us so embedded in the middle east that the next president would have no hope of getting us out"
Funny how people can post an out and out lie and pretend its the truth. But whats scarier is when they really start to believe their own BS. I truly think n2n believes this. I guess this kind of mentality is an example of how someone can strap a bomb to themselves walk into the middle of a wedding or place of worship and blow themselves and everyone around them to pieces. Wow, truly amazing.
Reply-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Bush has done plenty of stupid things. He has made far more than his share of mistakes. That granted, it is not necessary to fabricate statements for him, nor is it necessary to present him as more inept than his performance has been.
I think you are revealing a flaw in your own character.
Reply-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1-2-Oscar Send Message
{{{{{{You should be ashamed of yourself.
Bush has done plenty of stupid things. He has made far more than his share of mistakes. That granted, it is not necessary to fabricate statements for him, nor is it necessary to present him as more inept than his performance has been.}}}}}
You are right, no reason to fabricate things about Bush, the record speaks for itself! Bush is only doing what he was told, the same as the presidents before him. You can believe what you want but our history is one of constant war, this is what the people who own our world want.
Reply-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again, crghss and Oscar miss the forest through the trees. Look at what the president really said.
"We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists. No, we're not leaving."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08...
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And you can't read. n2n said that Bush said he planned to have us so imbedded that NO PRESIDENT could leave.
That is quite a bit different than saying that "We're not leaving, so long as I'M THe PRESIDENT."
Do you see the difference between I'M THE PRESIDENT and NO PRESIDENT?
I hope so....walden3, I thought you were more intelligent than to rehash this garbage. I'm let down.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact is when Bush leaves office he is going to leave Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Iran to the next president. Whoever the next president is will have no hope of getting us out of Iraq. US forces will be in Iraq for decades to come. We can argue semantics, punctuation, inferences and what should have been capitalized, or maybe a different way of saying the same thing, but the fact remains - we will have forces in Iraq for decades to come. Bush did the equivalent as you getting a 150 year mortgage. He locked us into the debt of defense for the foreseeable future.
"No, we're not leaving."
GWB 8/21/2006
You see us picking up and coming home in the next 5, 10 or 15 years?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
automan909- Your comment sort of validates their reason for having the bomb. People are always making reference to Iran training and supplying terrorists or insurgents but the fact is most nations do this so before accusing others one should always look in the mirror first. The logic of attacking someone who has done nothing makes as much sense as fining all teens for speeding as soon as they get their liscence because some day they will speed.
Reply-
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And IF Iran does Nuke Israel...or if Iran does sell a bomb to some terrorist group....if terrorist attack the US, UK, or maybe some Chechyans blow up some part of Russia....what next?
You libs, will of course blame it on Bush. I can see it now.
"Instead of stopping Iran Bush was too playing dictator in Iraq."
And of course, the conspiracy therorist (read anti-semitic) among you will be saying "Iran didn't do it!!! The Jews blew up ...um...Israel so that um...the US would go to war with Iran!"
Reply-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1). Not a liberal.
2). Your reasoning is fallacious. Your argument is that we should attack another nation because we can pose a hypothetical situation in which attacking them would be justified. You could use the same reasoning to rationalize a first strike against any nation, anywhere. "And IF Sweden nukes Israel, what next?"
It's HYPOTHETICAL. Like saying if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hopped.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I never said that we should attack Iran. Good to see that you jump the gun here.
I have never stated my opinion on what to do with Iran on propeller...is that some hate for anyone who doesn't baaa along the same path as you?
I simply don't know what to do. And your logic is the most faulty of all. No one is threatening the destruction of Israel other than Iran.
In fact, no countries in the world are threatening the destruction of ANY country other than Iran.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We did hear Hillary say "obliterate" and McCain sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
That gotta be pretty scary to all of those Iranian type of folks living over way there. Hell, it gotta be scary for anyone that knows someone in the area.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
TOD3961 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It really doesn't take much to get all of you guys in a tizzy, now does it? Unamed sources from an obscure website and all of a sudden, we are in WWIII. Do you guys lay awake at night praying for stuff like this?
There is no credence to any of the story yet all of you jump on it like it's Christmas morning. So, let me ask, if by August, the US has not used air strikes against Iran, will all of you then come back and say this story was a lie? Like you do with the reasons that we went to war with Iraq? Or will you do what you always do and say, Well, it's Bush's fault"
Your stories and your excuses are all starting to sound the same. Next thing you know, you will all say that Obama would make a good president...
Reply -
-
Neutral
quiteman1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lets pull out and let the blood flow like in Viet Nam. Let the killing fields begin. What compassion you liberals have. You want a repeat of history. Millions dead and hundreds of thousands in concentration camps. The problem this time is if we let them win there they will come here soon.
Fools.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So, let me ask, if by August, the US has not used air strikes against Iran, will all of you then come back and say this story was a lie?"
Of course, they won't, and it won't be necessary because by August they will have come up with a new story which asserts that Bush will invade Iran by October.
Then, when October rolls around, the forum will be filled with frantic predictions that Bush will declare martial law and prevent Obama from ever being inaugurated.
That will tide them over till January, by which time they will have concocted a new story, probably based on Bush and Cheney's alleged war profiteering.
This is a SOCIAL site, sir. That means that there is no standard of veracity. What counts is that you have a pack of like-minded hyenas to vote your story to the front page.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a SOCIAL site, sir. That means that there is no standard of veracity. What counts is that you have a pack of like-minded hyenas to vote your story to the front page.
--
exactly like the Obama is a muslim.. or Obama smoked crack in a limo with me.. or Obama.. well you get the idea...
Reply-
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They don't...so I'll spell it out for them.
Obama was born into a Muslim family. He attended an Islamic school at a young age. Obama WAS a Muslim at a very young age, he even admits that himself. For whatever reason, Obama claims to have converted to Christian.
Under Sharia law, Obama could be justifiable killed by a Muslim. Under Sharia, Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam as a religion. That is why Salmon Rushdie is still in hiding.
Reply-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh come on references to anyone's religion have no place. The fact that Romney is a mormon or Leiberman a Jew what's it really matter. I'm sure you can find enough to not like Obama for without resorting to culture police type attacks. For that I neg your comment.
Are you saying that because someone is a Muslim that they should be excluded from being POTUS? If that's not what you mean then I heartily apologize to you. I may have read too much into it.
"...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
U.S. Const. Art. VI
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow...nice way to read into my comment. I never said that made him unqualified.
I simply stated facts walden3...as you get more delusional and liberal in your old age do you remember what factgs are?
Fact 1. Obama was born to a Muslim father and attended a Muslim school.
Fact 2. He converted to Christianity.
Fact 3. Under Sharia law, anyone who leaves Islam is to be executed.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Facts mean nothing without conclusions or inferences. What was your reason for posting these facts? Like I said if I read too much into, as I am likely to do, then I apologize. Sincerely. If on the other hand you think a Muslim is unable to be president for the fact that she is a Muslim then I take exception with that.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
blinkers1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, MrC, he wrote a difficult but quite brilliant novel, "The Satanic Verses" which parodied Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution to a merciless degree. The dogmatic old tyrant never even saw a copy, but, informed of its contents ordered the 'fatwa', to huge popular acclaim. All very worrying.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a SOCIAL site, sir. That means that there is no standard of veracity. What counts is that you have a pack of like-minded hyenas to vote your story to the front page.
----
yet I don't see you calling out the posters of stories with titles like
Obama schooled in a madrassa.. Obama radical muslim... Obama smoked crack with me in a limo and had homo sex...
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you don't see me objecting to those stories which unfairly attack Senator Obama, it is simply because you have not looked. I was an Edwards supporter until he left the race, and switched at that point to Sen. Obama. I have consistently defended him against exactly the sort of unwarranted attacks you mention.
The fact that you do not "see" that is apparently more a product of your own unwillingness to consistently condemn garbage postings than it is of any real events, either here on Propeller or in the greater world outside. It certainly suggests that YOU do not choose to address the topic honestly.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Kennyg731 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush, Cheney , and the Neocons did not go to all the trouble to eviscerate the Constitution and The Bill of Rights just to walk away quietly into the night.
Look for war in Iran , "terrorist threat/attack", or liquidation of one or more candidates to serve as an excuse to derail the election. Hell, they stole the last 2... and are getting tired of stealing... better just to cancel the whole damn mess.... nobody votes anyway!
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
The SS is being formed and you are one of their targets.
Can't get over that Gore lost fair and square. Several recounts of the Florida ballots ALWAYS gave the election to Bush. Only one recount by an extremely biased group gave it to Gore.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
beavith11 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
does iran have to be one screw turn away from a bomb before you idiots will admit a problem exists? the world is awash in reactor fuel. the ability to make 5% enriched fuel for reactors makes 70%, or better, weapons grade enriched an exercise in repetition. the heavy water plant they opened LAST YEAR is for plutonium production. a Pu bomb is tricky but clearly doable and it'd fit on their special Scud IRBM.
how in the world the US Gov't said that a bomb program was stopped in 2003 is sheer lunacy.
i would say don't worry about a US bombing. this is a clear and present danger to Israel. Ahmedinonutjob will be laughing out the other side of his mouth when israeli nuclear sub missiles rain bombs on iran.
problem solved.
"just like an iranian to bring an a bomb to an h bomb fight."
Reply-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
beavith1 Send Message
{{{{does iran have to be one screw turn away from a bomb before you idiots will admit a problem exists?}}}}}
The problem is that people want to believe in an America that never really existed. Wars are about money, why do you think we have so many?
Is is so hard to believe that our cia could stir up things to make war?
Israel has over 100 nukes so if they can't take care of Iran, what about the UN? Why should we spend our money and lives to take care of the world?
Reply-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
DeLeMaComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If any of you in your country care to remember the oil crisis in 1979 when drivers had to stand in line outside gas stations at 4am to fill up their "rationed" gallons, you have not seen anything yet
IF YOUR COUNTRY ATTACKS IRAN.
You will all be stationed at home and walk for everything from groceries to work.
Wake Up, and be heard and counted before it happens.
Reply -
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On a visit to New York & Philadelphia last weekend, I saw long lines of people outside churches that were giving "FREE" soup.
Has your country hit the "DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF THE RICHEST THIRD WORLD POOR COUNTRY" yet!
Enjoy the prosperity.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have an excuse to not understand what it takes to do what the rumor says. The ones who live here and are saying these things are ignorant fools.
The president does not have the power to start a war. He only has the power to fight back if someone attacks the US. Congress where at present Democrats rule has that power. That fact makes this rumor ridiculous.
Reply -
-
-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Next bailout from China will be to the banks who are sitting with $$billions in home equity loans on homes that are not worth the loan.
**********MISSION ACCOMPLISHED***************
1/1/2009.
. Bush has invaded Iran for the third war.
. $25 / gallon gas if you can find it.
. Foreclosed homeowners on the streets & soup kitchens
. Banks fighting for "stimulus" checks from China via Bush.
Enjoy the prosperity!!!! By the way are the Super Bowl tickets sold out?
Reply-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
sue20081 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ooh come on, you know that was part of the plan after Iraq jump over Iran then Syria and of course you can leave out Saudi .. that will make Israel secure and happy..plus control the oil region!!
How many times did he visit Israel in the past few months?!?!?
it is all BS... when he attacks other countries he is protecting the world but when those countries fight back... they are terrorists and should be eliminated
Reply-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
KvilleTXComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How many Americans have died and will die in Iraq at the hands of Iran? How many will die because it is clear to Iran that the Administration's hands are tied by the likes of Pelosi and Lugar?
Iran's best bet for their long term security is a democratic Iraq. However, they are not interested in long term security. They are interested in a partitioned Iraq whereby they can then take the southern oil fields. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, that is exactly what will happen. If Iraq is partitioned, the Kurds will have no choice but attempt independence. When that happens, Turkey will reclaim the north, including those resources. Turkey will NEVER allow an independent Kurdistan.
There couldn't be a better setup for WWIII.
Reply -
-
Neutral
thoughtforsale1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This scenario becomes unfortunately more and more realistic. But an air strike would not only cause a quick earthquake, it would draw a lasting line of demarcation between east and west, it would create new dangerous coalitions and, last but not least, it would isolate America totally concerning its foreign affairs. Besides, America should not repeat the mistake of reacting on some invalid information!
Reply-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.
This was in 2004. SO, if Obama were president now you might be reading this same rumor about him.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
will- your words, I haven't seen that sort of comment anywhere.
What he is is inexperienced. He has not even been a leader in the senate, where he could have worked on some of his campaign promises, showing us he has been "leading the way."
He comes across as a opportunist, who is caught up in the overflow of admiration for his oratory abilities. Pretty heady stuff.
But, saying the right words, and having the knowledge and experience to be the leader of the United States are two different things.
So far he has shown a lack of WISDOM.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but I do respect the office of the president.
---
did you do you respect Clinton's service in that office....
RESPECT IS SOMETHING EARNED.... no matter what office .. almost NO ONE in the world repects the current occupant of the office of POTUS..
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will, I look at it differently than you do.
I'm talking about the office of the President of the United States.
No matter who is in the office, the office itself deserves respect.
Yes, the person in the office has to earn respect, but of whom. Since the people elected the president, ie Carter was ineffective, Kennedy was a druggie and womanizer, etc, they were elected and held the power of the US in their hands as far as the rest of the world was concerned.
You are looking at it from personal point of view, do you like the president or not.
From a world point of view, liking doesn't enter into it. The power of the office does.
I think I haven't put this well - but an effort.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
don't know.. don't care
won't be voting for him...
I'll probably at this point write in Ron Paul... UNLESS McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate.. then I'll re-examine that ..
I HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT.. senator and congressman yes.. but president NO..
how's that for a shocker.. bet you thought I'm a LIB..
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Obama said this, that he would use nukes, he has lost any credibility with me;, seems only Ron Paul has out and out said that nukes were not an option, and one never hears from this voice of reason...how come? Please don't tell me that the media is controlled by some one EH!
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this is what I found Klarissa: seems you are wrong.
Dodd Hits Obama For No-Nukes Comment
By Greg Sargent - August 2, 2007, 4:50PM
Chris Dodd also comes out against Obama, releasing a statement this afternoon not long after Obama said he'd rule out the use of nukes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan:
"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.
"We are facing a dangerous and complicated world. The next President will require a level of understanding and judgment unprecedented in American history to address these challenges."
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to say that it's not fully clear to me what Dodd is saying with respect to Obama's remarks today. Obama said he'd rule out using nukes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hillary said you shouldn't rule that out. Dodd, however, is merely saying you shouldn't make "categorical statements about military options." This appears to suggest he agrees with Hillary that Obama shouldn't have ruled out nukes -- without quite saying it.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hope the 3rd time is successful to post this:
references to Obama's Iran statements- http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/11/01/obama-s...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/oba...
Propeller doesn't like me today, boo-hoo
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the minds of radical Islam (The Shia zealot's of the Mahdi believers and/or the Sunni Wahhabi) that line of demarcation has always existed. Sadly, the majority of western minds cannot grasp or understand that reality. We like to think that everything can be negotiated and that compromise can always be reached - that thinking will be our undoing.
Reply-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, your type of thinking is our undoing. Take a look around. Gas through the ceiling. Foreclosures at an all time high. Rumsfeld told us at the beginning that the Iraqi's would pay us back for ousting Saddam with their oil money. When's that supposed to happen? 50 years from now? 100 years from now? Most of us will be dead by then!
Reply-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops. I'm really disappointed how many of those here think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.' Disappointed but not surprised.
Here, this may educate you a bit further...then again, probably not.
Reply-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess Rumsfeld couldn't see through the long lens of history either. Because this is what he said...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8
Reply-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice try. Rumsfeld was speaking about the war to topple Sadaam, and said nothing at all about a time line for Iraqi oil paying for the expenses. I will readily admit things have been screwed up royally since that occurred but still...when you have an infrastructure that suffered 30 years of neglect plus fairly constant sabotage ever since what do you expect? This makes me think of people who stress over the stock market on a daily basis. Of course it has ups and downs, always has, always will, but everytime it takes a downswing folks start freaking like its the end of the world without a thought to the fact that over its 70 year history it has averaged 12% growth. Iraq is not a fast food joint you invested in where you can expect to start turning a profit after a few months. 10 years is probably a more reasonable estimate but it certainly isn't today or 50 years as the only options.
Reply-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People aren't dying over the stock market fluctuations. Baghdad was a cosmopolitan city before we invaded it. We broke it and now we are paying the price to fix it. We were never told going into this that it would take ten years. We were lied to. The American people would have never bought into this. Yes, we are stuck with it. Looking at the long lens of history. Many people will die before this thing ever gets fixed. It may seem like a great big chess game where small moves in the beginning eventually will determine the outcome, but this game stinks. Trillions of dollars are being spent to democratize a country that we don't even have any business occupying in the first place.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jimdoze
{{{{{{{How many Americans have died and will die in Iraq at the hands of Iran? How many will die because it is clear to Iran that the Administration's hands are tied by the likes of Pelosi and Lugar?}}}}}
Comon Jim you don't really believe this do you? This administration has had it's hands tied? You can say that after Iraq and afghanistan? The power is where it has been since the bankers took over this country in 1913, right in their hands.
They try to keep the illusion alive that we have representative government and that both sides are represented. We have Rush, Billo and Hannity pushing propaganda that their is a liberal left with power.
Do you really believe this?
We the people lost our country about 100 years ago, when are people going to wake up to this fact?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK - see , now, everyone is overreacting a bit. Notice the RUMOR is for a planned BOMBING, and NOT an invasion or regime change. Looks like it's about time to take out the nuclear centrifuges. Just think how very, very much better off we'd be right now if the program in Iraq had been to just bomb the bad things and leave everything else alone. IF this turns out to be a real plan, and IF the only thing bombed is the nuclear processing facility, this type program should clearly demonstrate a couple of things to the nutjobs running Iran: 1) They are NOT permitted to have nuclear weapons. Period. 2) They CAN be bombed into submission. 3) We COULD have made a "regime change" if we wanted to, and still could if we find it necessary. 4) They can't hide it so well that we can't hit it - there just aren't any big secrets in the 21st century... too much easy communication.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''Just think how very, very much better off we'd be right now if the program in Iraq had been to just bomb the bad things and leave everything else alone.''
Problem with that is there were no bad things to bomb
They said they knew where the bad things were, even pointed to them on a map, so I guess they could done strike style bombing.
I wonder why they didn't?
could it be there were no bad things to bomb, and they knew it?
Reply -
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bombing Iran will throw world oil and economic markets into chaos as we have never seen in the past. They will immediately block the Straits of Hormuz either by scuttling ships or mining. The speculators will run wild. Who will then be the victims? In particular the American consumer. We will see doubling of gas prices immediately. Remember this government has no control over the price of a barrel of oil. The Sunni Arab oil nations will rejoice. We will have hit their ancient enemies and they will make a mint.
Just the talk of this is surely killing any pro-Western sentiment among the Iranian people. This is all Cheney and the neocons doing. Bush has probably only asked Cheney, "Is this a good idea, I don't think the people will like it" to which Dick replied "SO!"
The reformists in Iran are not well organized and the idea of occupying Iran to achieve a change of leadership is completely insane. More than twice the population, three times the land mass.
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps all true. However. It should possibly be pointed out that only a fraction of the oil we use comes from the middle east. We'd be hurt without it, sure - but as long as Canada and the other major suppliers don't get too P.O.d at least we'll have a fair supply. THEN hybrids would get popular in a hurry.
Reply-
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The cost of a barrel of oil is set for the world market. That is a fixed price. Whether we get the oil from Canada, Venezuela or the ME. I don't have a great deal of faith in the psyche of the American public to deal with such an increase. Saw a lady flipping out the other day because she only got a little over 5 gallons for $20. Double that cost and people will freak.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
couldn't Iran just purchase a nuke anyway?
If they can't do it now, how long will it be until blackmarket nuclear materials are available, so shouldn't we play nice now before nuclear materials and weapons become more readily available?
Reply -
Neutral
carlthejarl1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow! So many delusional comments. I really don't know where to begin. ONLY FOOLS BELIEVE THAT IRAN'S NUKE PROGRAM SHOULD BE IGNORED.
Luckily, you fools aren't in charge, nor will you be after the upcoming election.
I don't think that this particular story has any validity. The writer's conversion to Islam should be enough to demonstrate his motivation to circulate such ridiculous bunk.
George Bush may or may not have immediate plans to bomb Iran, but this foolish story/rumor proves neither.
If the Worst President In US History, Jimmy Carter, had dealt with Iran/Achmadinejad in 1979/80, the current situation would not exist at all. I suppose that most of the morons posting fantastically retarded opinions now weren't alive then, or were too stoned to take note at the time.
Iran must be dealt with. Now or later, it will still have to be done, Russian involvement or not.
Maybe it's time for Democratic interference with US Domestic Oil Production to end...Ya'think?
Reply-
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If the Worst President In US History, Jimmy Carter, had dealt with Iran/Achmadinejad in 1979/80"
Ahmadinejad was a minor figure at the time. And we really had no leg to stand on with the Iranian people. They hated us then for the support of the Shah. By the way Carter no longer holds the distinction you attributed to him.
And for the 101st time if Iran ever shows any indication they are going to launch (which would be years from now at best) they would be smote from the Earth. It's a canard, a sham to continue the PNAC policies that essentially called for Coulter like tactics. "Kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity" Of course this will all be done in the name of democracy. Not the real thing but a joke just like the Maliki government in Iraq. Maliki would not be in power without the support of al-Sadr and SCIRI (look up that acronym).
Where do you live? I suggest we build a refinery in your backyard! Is that OK with you and your neighbors?
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you touched on some of why US policy and the Iraq fiasco has strengthened Ahmadinejad's position and gave him some much needed legitimacy among Iranians. Who knows where Mr A would be now without our help?
I saw a PBS deal about Truman, and he said something very interesting about changing the world thru strengthening America. Caught my ear as relevant. One thing no one can argue, is that Iraq has not strengthened America or our place in the world
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry but an "informed source" in the Asia times hardly constitutes solid journalism, they don't even suggest that they have any confirmation from a second source.
sounds a lot like gossip.
---
we started a WAR over much the same thing..
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To follow your refusal to see analogies, people aren't dying over a chess game. Come on jov, you aren't really that big of a meat head are you?
"We were never told it would take 10 years", and you weren't told it would not either. Rome wasn't built in a day either. The American Revolution took a good 10 years, and in today's $ cost the French government 3 trillion $, was that a waste of time & money too? Our defeat, pacification & rebuilding of Japan & Germany took more than a couple years as well, was that a waste of time & money? For crying out loud, grow up and put your big girl panties on.
Reply-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FU! Try growing upyourself. Conversation over. Who the hell is talking about the revolution or the French. Snap out of it! This is happening right now! This isn't a damn war over independence. What daydream are you living in?Our sealanes aren't being cut off by Iraqi's and Iranians. There's no attacks on us from these countries. You talk about pirates. LMFAO! You just proved to me that you are a certified lunatic.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
EDWARDIII1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This has been going on all along. Propaganda as usual. Read this and note the date:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl...
Wake me up when there is some real news.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.