These '06 predictions of Congressional pick-ups really scare me.  The Democrats were supposed to pick up seats in each of the past 3 (possibly more) elections and failed each time.  Sure, the circumstances are different - republicans are embroiled in scandal after scandal, but let's not put the cart before the horse - there's hard work to be done to ensure the outcome we want come November...and nothing is assured.

with the election integrity groups in our areas.

There are lists by state at VotersUnite.org, VoteTrustUSA.org, BlackBoxVoting.org. The only way we're going to pick up seats is if we can get rid of the f'ing hackable machines. Unless it's an obvious not disputable landslide and that it's known BEFORE the election that it will be a landslide - then I'm not sure they could pull that big of a switcheroo. I mean I know they could but it would be much more likely to be detected. I think.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia

We should all be getting involved

with the election integrity groups in our areas.

There are lists by state at VotersUnite.org, VoteTrustUSA.org, BlackBoxVoting.org. The only way we're going to pick up seats is if we can get rid of the f'ing hackable machines. Unless it's an obvious not disputable landslide and that it's known BEFORE the election that it will be a landslide - then I'm not sure they could pull that big of a switcheroo. I mean I know they could but it would be much more likely to be detected. I think.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1297&mesg_id=1297

Discrepancies between NY Times reports and official voter registration figures

I initially suspected that there was something very wrong with voter registration in Ohio, and especially in Cleveland, when I discovered a HUGE discrepancy between reports by the New York Times of massive new voter registration in Democratic areas of Ohio (ten times that of Republican areas) and official voter registration figures. I posted a DU article entitled “New York Times Reporters Probably Hold Key to Proving Kerry Victory in Ohio”, in which one of my main points was that the Times reporters identified 230,000 new voters registered in heavily Democratic Cuyahoga County in 2004, compared to official Secretary of State figures indicating only 119,000 newly registered voters in Cuyahoga County. I suggested at the time that a major reason for the discrepancy of 111,000 voters was either illegal purging of voters or fraudulent manipulation of the official figures to hide the fact that votes in heavily Democratic areas were electronically deleted on Election Day, or a combination of those things. Along these lines, I later posted another DU article, entitled “What Happened in Cleveland – a Plausible Scenario for a Stolen Election”, where I estimated that if the discrepancy between the official figures and the newspaper reports was due to voter registration fraud, that could have cost Kerry about 46 thousand net votes in Cleveland.

Confirmation by Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition

Having failed to get the NY Times or its reporters to respond to my enquiries, I managed to get a large degree of confirmation from Norman Robbins, leader of the Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition. According to his figures, as communicated to me by e-mail, there were160,894 new voter registrations received by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in 2004 (compared to 31,903 new voter registrations in 2000). This was about 42,000 more registered voters than the 119 thousand increase in registered voters between March and November of 2004 indicated by the official figures (though Normans’ number of newly registered voters in Cuyahoga County is somewhat less than that identified by the New York Times.) The discrepancy between Robbins’ figures and the official figures could be due to purging of newly registered voters, or failure to process the new voter registrations, which Robbins describes in his report.

Illegal purging of registered voters

Confirmation of the probable reason for the above noted discrepancies came from research by Victoria Lovegren, who posted a report at Ohio Vigilance which indicates the purging, apparently illegal, of 165,224 voters from Cuyahoga County alone, for no other rationale than that they hadn't voted recently. Dr. Lovegren notes in her report that this practice violates the National Voting Rights Act. This matter is still being investigated. We don't know at this time precisely when these purges occurred, though it was some time between the 2002 and 2004 November elections. Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of these reports is that the purging appears to have been done discriminately, that is, with no specific criteria for who would be purged.

Dr. Lovegren's report also notes numerous other issues of serious concern, including the following:
 Registration applications being rejected for trivial reasons.
 Insufficient staff to deal with all the applications for voter registration.
 Requests for absentee ballots not responded to.
 Hundreds of long time voters missing from the voter roles
 Jammed phone lines on Election Day, so that voter inquiries couldn’t be answered
 The public was not allowed to watch the provisional ballot verification process.
 Numerous voters did not receive provisional ballots as required by law.
 Numerous dirty tricks aimed at disenfranchising Democratic voters.

What effect did this have on the ground? – Evidence from Mark Crispin Miller’s Book

A question that is often asked of me when I talk about voter registration fraud in Ohio is what effect the purging of Democratic voters would be likely to have on the election results. There are two lines of doubt that have been expressed to me on this question. One is the question of whether newly registered voters would be as likely to vote as would long time voters. This question is answered in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) report on the 2004 Ohio election. According to Section VI, Figure 12 of that report, new voter registration was correlated with high voter turnout, meaning that in general, newly registered voters were more likely to vote in the Ohio 2004 election than were previously registered voters.

The other line of doubt is the question of whether people who are purged actually are prevented from voting. I am asked, “Couldn’t these people re-register after they found out that they were purged? I would answer this question by saying that maybe they could re-register if they know they were purged – but an unknown number of these voters didn’t know until Election Day. But I didn’t have much of a sense of how frequently the purging would actually prevent voters from voting until I read Professor Miller’s book.

In that book, Miller recounts his conversations with Denise Shull, a poll checker in Summit County. During the course of her work on Election Day, Shull noted that approximately 10% to 20% of registered Democratic voters on her list were not on the official list of registered voters. Furthermore – and this is very important – these voters were described as ardent Democrats, as long time voters in the area, AND most of them were not voting. A possible reason for their not voting is suggested by an encounter that Shull had with one of these voters as the voter (or more precisely, non-voter) was leaving the polls. This voter was simply told that she couldn’t vote and was given a phone number to call. And even more disturbing, Shull noted three of her fellow Democratic volunteers who described to her very much the same phenomenon occurring at the polling places where they worked that day.

What Shull describes not only provides confirmation that legally registered voters were purged from the voter rolls prior to the 2004 election, but indicates that most of these voters ended up not voting. What effect would this have had on the net vote count?

As I noted above, I calculated that with some modest targeting of Democratic voters, the purging of voters in Cleveland alone would have resulted in a net loss to Kerry of about 46 thousand votes. Targeting of Democratic voters in Cleveland could have been done relatively easily, since Cleveland is heavily Democratic (voted 83% for Kerry, 16% for Bush in 2004), and many precincts in Cleveland voted more than 90% for Kerry. In order to target Democratic voters in Cleveland, one would merely have had to pick out those precincts with a history of voting 90% or more for Gore in the last election.

But what about Summit County, the county where Denise Shull and other Democratic volunteers described on-the-ground evidence of voter registration purging, and where only 57% of voters voted for Kerry. Voter purging in Summit County would have been much less efficient than voter purging in Cuyahoga County, because any voter purging that occurred would have included a large proportion of Republicans as well as Democrats. Unless ….

How could voter purging be made more efficient in counties with large percentages of Republican voters?

Miller’s book also describes a break-in at Democratic Party headquarters in Akron, Summit County, in the summer of 2004. The only thing stolen was two computers with Democratic campaign-related information on them. A similar break-in occurred three months later in Lucas County, and was described by the Toledo Blade. One can guess that with voter information obtained from these computers, the targeting of Democratic voters in these two counties could have been made a lot more efficient than it could have been without that information.

Orwell reasoned if thought could be controlled rebellious action could be prevented. http://www.factnet.org/Margaret_Thaler_Singer/The_Not_Me_Myth.html

http://tinyurl.com/d7mpw

Orwell reasoned if thought could be controlled rebellious action could be prevented. http://www.factnet.org/Margaret_Thaler_Singer/The_Not_Me_Myth.html

...I guess I didn't explain myself very well.

I meant for you to REPLACE the long url to DU with the tiny url in the post above. (You can't edit it now, because there is a reply to it.)

For whatever reason, this board doesn't wrap long URL's on certain browsers, like Mozilla Firefox, and it causes the thread to get R E A L L Y W I D E, so much so that some cannot even scroll right far enough to read the posts. But it looks fine with Microsoft Internet Explorer, so go figure.

For future reference, When in doubt, Go TinyURL! or use html or BBCode tags.

Don't sweat it, tho. We've all done it! ;-)

MAKE OHIO BLUE

Debra Bowen for CA Secretary of State \'06!

They each have the responsibility to conduct elections, are MUCH closer to the people, and more likely (at least somewhat) to be able to resist pressure from the big Rep thugs. (Even if they are majority Rep, they could be persuaded that honesty is the only policy.)

Wish I lived in a STATE! We have choice, paper or machine, and when chatting with voters at the polls, when they wondered which to use and I suggested that paper can be checked/confirmed, they each agreed that's better.

[ Debra Bowen in Ca. is taking the lead I am involved with the movement for free & fair elections ]

I saw the Fox News sideways announcement about Iran & region Sunday.  I don't (((((think)))))) you want to have my (((((( thoughts)))))) on this topic...  I was looking forward to 2006 I had a fairly good 2005 for a gimp I learned more about the computer not really my cup of tea but groking the 00 01 world is a habit I am slowly acquiring.  I believe Wes Clark told the bitter truth in the language of a retired General - and will leave the actual announcement for #$($*$(#$*& our national head of state.   Orwell reasoned that if a government could control all media and communications, meanwhile forcing citizens to speak in a politically - controlled jargon, this would blunt independent thinking.  If thought could be controlled, then rebellious actions against a regime could be prevented.

http://www.factnet.org/Margaret_Thaler_Singer/The_Not_Me_Myth.html

They talk about the NSA spying on FOX. Wes has been asked about it and said something like, "the question is what are they doing they can't take to the FISA court?"

about FAUX covering Snoopgate.  I remember what Wes had said in interview last week(?) about NSA spying. 

You have been right on top of the story about us going after Iran the past few days.  Was following along, but I wasn't quite sure what to make of the reports yet.  Wes seemed concerned, imo.  Also, seems to be saying we'll hold "them" accountable BEFORE "they" take any action this time.  Another "selling of the product"?  Before another election?  It was hard to digest it all with that terrible interviewer and other guy there.  Will take some time.  And...trying to figure out what these cretins are really up to.  It seems certain tho, they're not overly concerned about impeachment or indictments.  Brazen they are!!   

Some wildfires here close to home. (By the way California please send us some of your rain) But I still wish Faux would hurry up and get Clark on.

Becky in the burned up state of Oklahoma. 

Becky, I understand it's was bad,.. but Fox is saying that there's still "evacuations of hospitals, nursing homes, residential homes, whole neighborhoods....school closings planned,, fires are all "out of control", ......still

But guests, are saying eh,.. no, ...no hospitals,  fires in OK city area high alert, but presently controlled, winds died down,.. ..etc.

is Fox News.

Why?

mentioned I thought they were on speed.  Had to mute them till Wes came on.  Hype, hype, hype, hype, hype! 

On another note, did I hear the bimbo say all the firefighters in OK were volunteers?  Where's the DNR?  Or do we have one anymore.....did it get drained down the bathtub?  Another "heckofajob" in charge?  WTH?

I hope OK is OK soon. OK's a Clarkie's second favorite state, afterall.

My cousin was 3 blocks away from the destruction in San Diego a few years ago. It was awful.

Just today there was a fire only about a 5 minute drive away from my house. But they got it under control. It did threaten a few businesses in the area. Including a major dog food plant.

Now on to Clark He's on. Yippee!!!!!!! 

if it bleeds (or burns) it leads.

Why?

enough terr'sts in Iraq... Piss off anyone who didn't already hate us and they can ramp up the fear factor at home.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia

I think it is true in general that so many Democrats, for good reason, completely distrust this administration, that the tendency now can be to go overboard in denying the severity of real security threats in the world that any U.S. President would have to somehow respond to.  That doesn't mean that Democrats should automatically support or praise the specific responses that the current Administration chooses to take, but in being critical of those choices we can run the risk of seeming overly blind to the nature of genuine threats if we don't also make a point of addressing them.  If that happens, our voices will be further marginalized.

There is a reson why Clark has been pushing for regional solutions regarding Iraq.  The tighter the door toward that approach is locked, the more likely an explosion is coming.  Iran is looming as the location.

I think that this is his intent. Will Bush use the airstrikes to politically position himself and his dismal poll numbers?  If so, he may build the case months before his intent to strike to generate more domestic division here.

The real issue, of course, is that Bush may again be compromising national security, by not engaging in more regional diplomacy, which is what Clark has always urged, and as you reminded above. 

Personally, I have no doubts that Iran has every intent to develop a nuclear weapons program; and in one way or other, I believe that must be stopped, as long as Iran remains a fundamentalist-based government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that'snot wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (US Ret.)

Iran is looming as the location

What if Iraq is looming as the location.  What if cheney and co are baiting Iran to attack us in Iraq?  Good reason to begin some airstrikes?  Just a passing thought I had, trying to flesh this all out.  There definitely is a feeling of the whole ME being set ablalze, Tom.   

But I doubt Bush is looking to expand a ground war.  In fact I doubt he wants to expand any war right now, I just fear he is not adept enough to avoid one.  And if HE feels the United States has no choice but to bomb Iran then of course his political people will work to milk it for every drop they can. 

I don't see this as a classic tail wagging dog situation, I see it more as a bull in the China shop situation where the bull will try to blame the china for all the breaking that will happen.   I think Bush equates the survival of his administration with the security of our nation, so in his mind the political means he will use to take down Democrats after an attack on Iran happens is all justified, but I don't think that is why he may attack Iran.  I don't doubt that Bush, in his twisted mind, thought that the invasion of Iraq was needed for expansive National Security reasons.   

Truth of the matter is, if Israel has nukes, and Iran has nukes, the real possiblity of Earth's first two sided nuclear war goes up dramatically.  How is that for depressing?  Even assuming neither side is looking for a chance to go nuclear, neither did the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cuban crisis.  Heads were cooler in Washington and Moscow then than they are in Tehran and Tel Aviv/Jerusalem now, and it still almost happened then. 

Seriously, ...  there's no way we can really invade Iran with the recruitment so low, unless there's a draft! Also, there will be no international resolutions for a pre-eptive invasion this time,.. by Congress or via the UN.  The only logical or tactical move would seem to be an airstrike.  By whom, is another story.

It's depressing alright, Tom.  I hope Wes can elaborate on his thoughts a bit more tomorrow or in a writeup of some type.  I won't rest easier till he does.  Even if it's not what I particularly want to hear. 

Oh....there's no doubt in my mind either "they" have conviced chimpy he is doing all this to "protect" us.  He just doesn't have the capacity to think otherwise, imo.

He's merely saying that he thinks its in the  cards and laid out how the admin will try to sell the idea to the public. The old wag the dog trick.

Why?

DAMMIT!

as I think the public is getting damn sick and tired of BushCo and their lies. Very few people who aren't the Kool Aid drinkers will tend to believe these guys anymore. I think if Bush does bomb Iran there will be MASS DEMONSTRATIONS worldwide and his poll numbers will tank even more. We're on to the wag the dog trick, they'll have to think up something new. Like honesty. (But they don't know what that means, anymore. )

BTW, On  C-span, I saw Bush for a few minutes at a hospital in TX talking to someone- at least trying to answer questions and, frankly, he should stay there. Without his makeup, he looked terrible. really bad complexion, haggard,  lines in the forehead, slumped, starting to look really old - looks like the alcohol is trying to find a way out of his system.

The cure is a good case of IMPEACHMENT

because I was working on a campaign mailing and just got finished, but you guys are scaring me.

And donjo, I'd like to think people are on to Bush and his lies, but I fear too many can be easily manipulated by fearmongering, even after all we've endured.

have to find out who's right or wrong on this.

Why?

Bush will come up with some scary scenarios again.  Condi will too.  I do worry about Iran's nuclear capacity, because they are not diplomatic anymore than Bush is.

Seriously, I have NO idea what is real and isn't in Iran now.  I'm confused, because as solemn as Wes looked, he said it would be "prudent military planning."   He obviously feels that Bush is going to do this (I should say Cheney), and that the military has to be ready.

People are sick of Iraq.  I can't see how they would support going into Iran either.   Will it only take "four to six days" to take out bases and nuclear research centers, or whatever they are called?

and yet made sure he said he has not seen any classified information about it.  Something about it being a "prudent"military plan.

Something odd...... like a warning to our side about what this will mean for Dems.  Maybe I read too much into it all.   Like he was trying to get people to see that this is going to be good for Bush's poll numbers.  cripes!  Which it will.  aaaaaaaach!

There is this: 1) We have a dumbass administration 2) it sounds as if all of the major Dems will have to get behind this--they'll have no choice 3) No one will see the intelligence 4) Iran is trying to develope nukes--really 5) I thought that the IAEA was satisfied with their over sight access 6) I hate this administration...can't they negotiate anything? 

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley 

you listed here went quickly through my mind, really,,,,,,,, but I did forget about IAEA.  I'm NOT happy right now.  Happy New Year.  Cripes!

Yes, nearby counties are concerned (about Iran/nukes) and don't necessarily look forward to a military strike, but yes it is a distinct possibilty. He thinks prudent military  planning probably is going on right now. (Which doesn't mean he advocates strikes,  but planning is going on.)

Why?

Wes has been saying for ages now...that IRAN is the real threat...not Iraq...and that this administration wasn't paying enough attention to Iran...and that we needed to engage Iran in diplomacy to neutralize the very real threat they impose in the region. I believe that Wes is very concerned...maybe even alarmed about what Iran is capable of doing...and so...would not be opposed to airstrike against Iran nuclear holdings???? In any case, I think it's fair to conclude that BushCo completely mishandled everything pertaining to real security to our country.  I really loathe *....he and his inept cronies...are going to destroy this country...with the help of corporate media.

He was saying he thinks it's what the administration is planning. His best guess.

And the way he worded it, it sounded like he thinks it'll be something the Dems will have trouble opposing.

I was really hoping he'd be asked whether he thought it a good idea -- but the whole segment was ridiculously rushed.

I thought he implied that there would be a pretense of consultation with European allies and diplomatic efforts which made him sound unenthused and suspicious about the prospect.

But I would've liked an outright disclaimer that it's not what he's personally advocating.

_{You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003}

The US is being scorched by fires from the pits of hell!,,.. and you're worried about little nuclear war with Iran and the entire Middle East? ...sheesh!

Doesn't that mean he at the least sees it as necessary?

Yes, his warning to Dems.. subtle it was... that Dems won't be able to criticize.  Man, here we go again!

For my own peace of mind for definition: 

pru·dent  : characterized by, arising from, or showing prudence: as a : marked by wisdom or judiciousness b : shrewd in the management of practical affairs c : marked by circumspection : DISCREET d : PROVIDENT, FRUGAL
synonym see WISE

as mneaing the military foresaw the mission as a possibility and therefore planning is prudent -- in the sense of the wise, practical thing to do.

Military planning can be prudent, without the mission being a prudent one.

That was honestly the way I interpreted it at the time, I'm not parsing now to find a way around the comment.

_{You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003}

Guess I better check out the alert here on CCN.  ;)

I started a thread on this at DemUnderground: 

 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2343614

 My main post.....

Clark says there could be an action

4-6 days of airstrikes....his estimates, not based on any classified reports.

Bases in Turkey could be used.

Over last month, there have been repeated rumors...Porter Goss, Cheney, traveling in the region, talking up action....

Distinct possiblity, prudent military planning is going on right now.

Other guy--Ed Turzanski, "terrorism expert"

As Gen. Clark said, it would be a concentrated attack, not as easy , dispersed, underground facilities.
Politically more difficult if longer. Youth under 25 don't like mullahs, but attack runs the risk of rallying support, the last thing we want to happen.

Clark--A couple of points; First, there's gonna be a lot of skepticism about our intellience, (re Iraq). Second, he will strengthen his hand at home. It will be hard to talk against any action (sic-against what's perceived as a threat). He's going to pick up support at home. There will be a program of consultation, the buildup of support here, then the strike.

Turzanski--on the Shia in Iraq...not the same brand as in Iran. No certainty that Iraqi Shia will (sic) side with Iran.

Visit www.zianet.com/insightanalytical - Home of the World Media Watch M-W-F, also at Buzzflash.com

had been there for meetings! How could I forget that part of what he said.  So.. wth.

Ok....... I just realized that he may be saying that it's prudent for the military to plan "in case"...... not necessarily that he thinks it's prudent to take action against Iran.

But if he had had more time, he could have fleshed out this discussion,  He must have felt very frustrated that he was rushed. 

I feel sick.

I haven't had the benefit of looking back at the video, but you seem to have taken the same meaning from it as I did on the second viewing.

_{You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003}

... but my resolution for the New Year includes "no name calling"

I think it was Jamie Colby, though she should have her picture updated on the Fox website! 

insert a little devil icon here, I guess.  :) <shrug> 

not what I expected to hear.  Sort of disconcerting.  Damn shame.  So much for the '06 elections!

And the General always made it clear that Iran and Syria were next on the list. Both Ritter and Hersch have told us that special forces were in Iran and targeting. I think bush will have plenty of evidence that this IS going on, and Where the facilities are. What won't be said is that bush brought this on us with his stupid friggin war. 
Also, and this is not least, our troops in Iraq will now be further at risk because of this new offensive. Ya know, when the General titled his NYT op ed: Iran, the next offensive, I didn't think he had chosen well. Now, I'm not so sure.

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley 

I have the same take from my first viewing.

Ok...... laters, everyone. :(

I foresee BushCo provoking something so they can have air strikes.  I'm always the suspicious one.  But after all they have done, what will stop them?  Bush's polls are in the tanker. 

Sure he confirmed the reports tonight.  His warning to Dems really, really bothers me.  Catch 22 for them if they criticize?   Do we believe that Americans will get sucked into the lies again? 

* * * *

...and the bruhaha over gwb ADMITTING TO VIOLATIONS of the Fourth Amendment and the on-going Fitzgerald/Plame investigation AND the catastrophe of FEMA in NO/MS area AND the continuing loss of jobs AND rising heating costs AND...

I could go on, but gwb & the gop have painted themselves into a very small corner. I THINK John Q. Public is on to these "corporatists" and their demented ideas of "freedom" and "liberty for all".

No, an attack of Iran will ruin our economy, nay the WORLD economy. I'm moving my IRA to a euro-based index. As soon as the markets open Tuesday.

MAKE OHIO BLUE

I don't think he's advocating it.  I think he's speaking as a military analyst - the thought process that one in the administration would be using IF they were to think that a strike on Iran were a likelihood.  That's the way I see it, anyway.

However he is acknowledging a potential real security threat in that region that has to be managed.  I think Clark's point ultimately is, if the problem has to be fixed one way or another,  and Bush first throws away the wrench, and then he throws away the scalpal, and then he throws away the chissel, then ultimately the hammer will be the only tool left to use. 

Prudent planning in the context that Clark was speaking in I believe simply means that the military has to stand ready to execute identifiable military objectives that the Commander in Chief may ask of it, and to be ready plans must be prepared for any realistic contengency.  Given that the prudent thing for the Pentagon to be doing now is to be preparing plans for that specific use of force scenario.   Consultations will be happening with our allies, flight plans and clearance to use air space will be negotiated etc.

As many may recall, part of "Shock & Awe" included the U.S. moving into Iraq from the north thru Turkey and they said "NO!" (in part for fear of a Kurdish state - remember the terra attacks in Istanbul? here & here).
Altho' the way Iraq is turning out (will turn out IMHO) The Kurds are "fractionalizing" away from Baghdad anyway.

Oh yeah, what about "those that are with us"? Is Imperial gwb Amerika gonna go it alone AGAIN? Do the GOPhers have an Electoral Death Wish? (Oh yeah, Diebold et. al.)

Gosh, I hate to say it, but the sheeple were fooled once by the MSM's blatent parroting of gwb then. There is the Downing Street Memos and all the bogus claims made by this admin the sheeple swallowed hook line & sinker (also parroted by MSM).

Will The Sheeple buy bombing Iran "to protect Das Heimet" or "spreading democracy" like they did before? Especially after we've seen what a "heckuva job" they've already done at Das Ministry Des Heimat?

MAKE OHIO BLUE

;P

with the US over the last few months....

On the other hand, I read that they are very concerned about the Kurds taking over Kirkuk and might send troops into Iraq over that....but that won't necessarily stop them from allowing the air bases to be used to go after Iran.

 What a mess!

Visit www.zianet.com/insightanalytical - Home of the World Media Watch M-W-F, also at Buzzflash.com

none of it will matter.  If Turkey objects (ignored them before), if Congress objects, if the sheeple actually object (not likely unless "they" come grab their kid).  cheney will do it anyway.  They do as they please.  To think some thought PNAC was dead when Iraq didn't turn out to be a "cakewalk".  Ha!  They're riding the PNAC pipedream all the way.  And who is going to stop them?  Who?????  The longer ya think about it.......argggghhhh......sets your freakin' hair on fire!!! 

On tonight's General Discussion Thread I mentioned Rob's post and lengthy detailed discussion.

I'd expect the rest of the world will stare down bu$hco and will not blink.

And neither will we.

That's who.

MAKE OHIO BLUE

Thanks Ruth!  So,... what took you so long?

On a recent thread at DU, few were in favor of this option. They were shouting down with posts like: why shouldn't Iran have nukes? I can tell them: bush shouldn't be allowed to have nukes. 

The biggest problem is that bush has proven completely incapable of negotiating anything. Zip! Yes Iran is problem, but state craft could have avoided this deep abyss. We need Leadership NOW! We're not going to make 3 more years.

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley 

doesn't want Iran to have nukes. So, people at DU think more countries being nuclear is a good thing? We have A.Q. Kahn to thank for all of this and Pakistan.

Online users:

•  Reg NYC  <----- I hear typing, ....or a major hail storm.

.....because I wouldn't have been able to sleep if I had watched.

Ruth, thanks so much for capturing it.

The main point I took from what the General said was that GWB's capital would go up at home if we struck Iran (Europeans on board give him legitimacy) and this is what the WH will be looking at.

Do I think that Jr. would strike another country to raise his polling numbers and assure a victory for the GOP in 2006? Hell yeah!!!

And WKC is absolutely correct that this will cause a horrible problem for the Dems. @#$%^&*()_

I was so looking forward to this year. felt it was possible the Dems would finally get some traction.......in despair, I am.

And no Wes was not advocating any of this. Simply laying out what he thinks the Administration is doing.

Stomach churning.....hair on fire

George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.

The past few days days (well, like ten!!) I have had very little time to blog, but I usually try to get on the blog occasionally to peruse the general discussion thread. I'm thrilled that Gen Clark was on FOX last night - New Years Day, no less!! What a soldier he is to get to the studio on such an evening - for all our sakes. Although thrilled to see him on FOX again, thanks to your catching the event for us, I'm deeply troubled by what he had to say.

Last night we had family around, so sat and watched an old comedy on DVD, "Spies Like Us," with Chevy Chase and ... (another well known funny guy whose name escapes me at the moment). It was slapstick - about spies in Afghanistan who meander into southern Russia during the Cold War days. And, as funny as the show was, it was so sobering to realize what has actually happened since then!! And where we are now. IF ONLY the administration would have gone after the perpetrators of 9/11, meticulously, thoroughly, and effectively. What a horrendous debacle the neocons have wrought!! And how damage they've done....

Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark

Donjo-- my Iranian friends here -- and we have a large community here who came over in '79--  all tell me similarly, that the majority of educated young Iranians are very Pro West and would love the US to tip the applecart over there and get rid of the Mullahs for them (that we helped to install!).  That they would welcome our "interference" in some of sort of a staged operation or coup,  but NOT by bombing or air attack obviously. 

They claim they don't understand WHY we would consider airstrikes as a first resort,  knowing we have the sentiment of the bulk of the people on our side.  It's boggling.

Is the PNAC Manifesto written in blood or something--such that they cannot deter from the original plan, regardless of all the original estimates being proven incorrect and disasterous?

one-track mind.

Why?