home

Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Planning Military Strike on Iran

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:21:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

What a way to end the year. Where is the U.S. media on this? It's all over the European newspapers. Der Speigel:

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Some background:

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations. In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options.

As Der Spiegel points out, Bush has never denied the possibility of a military strike against Iran. What's new, it reports, is this:

Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

There's lots more, so when you get a chance, read the whole thing. [hat tip Patriot Daily, graphic by Der Spiegel.]

Update: Raw Story has the Der Spiegel article prominently displayed on its site.

< Wash. State Gives Patriotism Tests to Students? | Abramoff: Whom Will He Tag on the Way Down? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Planning Military Strike on Iran | 37 comments (37 topical)
    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    Gee, despite the fact that they most likely are speakig out der hosw'em bottoms, I hope they are right. We simply can not afford to have Iran having nukes.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#2)
    by jen on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    Strike? with what?

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#3)
    by DonS on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    This clearly plays to Bush's strength as a messianic shoot-from-the-hip pseudo cowboy who is up to his lyin eyes in scandal. Regardless of the strategic merit, and I find little to trust in either the U.S. or Israeli version of stratey these days, a wag the dog scenario is most believable, and at least as credible as any other keyboard jockey's instant prognostication of what "we" can or cannot tolerate in the world at large.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#4)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    I have no way of knowing, but some analysts worry that an attack on Syria is actually more imminent.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    Who has Iran ever invaded or nuked? What has the Bush administration ever undertaken that they haven't lied about and completely f*cked up? Bad combination of factors.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    Soc, Exactly. That the (il)logic behind it is so inane and flip makes me think it COULD happen. If it sounded sensible, I'd never think it possible for Bushco.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#8)
    by profmarcus on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    when are we going to get the bushco bastards outta there...? huh...? i don't know how we can manage to struggle through another year with these criminals at the helm and, god forbid, we don't need any more "shock and awe..." And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steven Sanderson on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    Bush sees a need to regain his unearned popularity. A major distraction is needed, but the repetitive raising of the terror alert level is too obvious. Reaching into the GOP bag of tricks the Bush junta grabs hold of the well tested, tried and true, republican political strategy of distraction through war. Can U.S. manufacturers produce enough body bags to keep up with the body count if Bush continues on his genocidal way?

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    Soccerdad,
    2. China has recently signed big contracts for LNG and oil with Iran. China is our big competitor for oil in that part of the world. They would be watching closely. China is very important at the moment in funding our current account deficits. 3. Russia also has deals with Iran and is very concerned with US military presence in a number of the former members of the USSR. So it might be expected that both Russia and China have limits to their patience with US imperialism. Their retaliation could be economic.
    Excellent analysis Soccerdad. What people don't realize is that China is fast becoming an economic powerhouse that could eventually hurt the US economy. The US consumes quite a bit from China but China also has other countries that consume their exports as well. Also, because of China's rapidly expanding economy, they are fast becoming consumers themselves and will eventually not rely on exports to fuel their economy.
    We simply can not afford to have Iran having nukes.
    Jim, you may want to rethink your position when you consider the total cost of ownership regarding US action in Iran. It's not all about body bags or the number of injured soldiers.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    Socdad, very well put. What i'd like to know is who's putting this notion in the Bushmans ear, when we already know he's dumber than a bag of doorknobs. I stole that from one of you mensas.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    Hodo writes:
    And they're gonna use who for troops, shmendrik, the twins?
    Can you spell - a i r p o w e r? If it happens, and I don't we're smart enough to do it, it will be a hit on the facilities to manufacture nukes. Probably 5 to 7 locations. With no invasion. If they attack Iraq it will another turkey shoot. Hodo writes:
    Hopefully, that 50 bucks you'll be donating to TL
    Does this mean that you are accepting the wager? If so, please respond on the thread the wager offer is on. mac - China needs us as badly as we need them. It is a married made in the parking lot of Walmart.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#13)
    by Nowonmai on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    I see historical flashback visions of young people burning draft cards. I don't think there will be enough law enforcement or jails to hold all the people who will flip off Bush and his gaggle of Chickehawks. If that warmongering dipstick wants to fight, he has my blessings to pack some boxing gloves and have at it. I am US citizen living in Australia. I have a soon to be 18 yr old son, and yes, I am sorely tempted to have him take citizenship here so he doesn't have to register for the draft. I think if the soldiers for these brainstorms Bush gets were selected from politcians families first, his ardor for war would quickly cool.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    China needs us as badly as we need them. It is a married made in the parking lot of Walmart.
    This is the standard reply which of course has a certain amount of truth to it. But one has to consider whats at stake here, i.e. some of the greatest supplies of oil and natural gas on the planet. The long term ramifications of who owns it or has access to it might at some point outweight the short term cost especially given that new markets for Chineese goods are opening up.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    If they attack Iraq it will another turkey shoot.
    More simplistic thinking from the typical neocon mind. They dont have to invade. Start sending thousands of troops and arms to Iraq. The Shias in Iraq will turn against the US and we are toast.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    LWW the usual suspects, the neocons, Abrahms, Wurmser, Cheney, Perle, etc

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    mac - China needs us as badly as we need them. It is a married made in the parking lot of Walmart.
    I agree... But with China's exponential economic growth, and the fact that they are a developing country, this won't be the case 5 to 10 years from now... And they know it.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 05:31:50 PM EST
    One other thing I just thought of... If the US engages in military activity with Iran, where is the money going to come from? Bush is going to be forced to repeal his tax cuts. The cost of the Iraq war, in terms of dollars, is already exceeded the projected cost.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:22:14 PM EST
    Iran is not a country I want to see armed with nuclear weapons. But I think a military strike would backfire. For reasons alluded to above, I don't think it will be feasible for the U.S. to get U.N. approval for any type of military action against Iran, so (assuming there is merit to the rumors) I wouldn't expect the Bush Administration to even try. It is possible that the rumors are being circulated to "test the winds" as to how the rest of the world will react; but that would be counterproductive - it would give Iran opportunity to move key equipment to safe locations. It is also possible that rumors are being circulated to pressure Iran to return to the bargaining table, but it has been apparent for years that Iran's bargaining has been focused on delaying any meaningful inspection while they continue to develop their nuclear weapons program. It's also possible that the rumors are nothing more than that. Attack either Syria or Iran, and we may suddenly find that Lebanon's Hezbollah is armed with weapons significantly more accurate and destructive than Katyushas. (But beyond an air strike, what would we do? We're not in a position to occupy another nation, and nobody else is going to step in.)

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:45:09 PM EST
    This is the quote from the article that I like:
    The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.
    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    Why oh why do we post these cartoons of George W. Bush and his court as action heroes? Every time we do this, we're doing their work for them. GWB is in fact a physical coward who's terrified of his own public. That's the image we should be repeating at every opportunity, not cartoons of him as a superhero.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#22)
    by Al on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:30:15 PM EST
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather think it's not the US that is in danger from Iran's nuclear weapons, but Israel.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:16:52 PM EST
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather think it's not the US that is in danger from Iran's nuclear weapons, but Israel.
    Yes, but Israel has been reported to have at least 100 nukes. Although Iran has signed the NPT and has undergone a number of inspections, Israel has not signed and has never been inspected.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#24)
    by Al on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:28:28 PM EST
    You're right, soccerdad. Now, if Iran's nuclear weapons are not a threat to the US or to Israel, at least not in a first strike, then they can't be the reason why the US would risk attacking Iran. The only reason I can think of is for show. Bomb some Iranian nuclear facilities, and watch the polls go up? Is that the idea?

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:25:19 PM EST
    Cry "havoc!" and let loose the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial. -- William Shakespeare "Julius Caesar"

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 04:50:36 AM EST
    The only reason I can think of is for show. Bomb some Iranian nuclear facilities, and watch the polls go up? Is that the idea?
    Don't know, here are some additional ideas. They might think that bombing would 1. destabalize the Iranian government 2. scare off investors such as China, India, and Russia 3. "accidently" hit the oil infrastructure of Iran 4, cause an Iranian response that would then justify further strikes. Its hard to see where the end result is not a further significant escalation of hostilities.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:02:09 AM EST
    Charlie Hodo - Quit squirming. If you want to accept the wager, it is this: If the actions of Bush in the NSA matter is found to be illegal - and remember this might go to the SC - I will contribute $50.00 to Talk Left. If it is not found to be illegal, you will contribute $50.00 to Talk Left. Please copy the above on your reply, indicate that you accept the wager with a simple: I accept. We can both keep copies for our records with no BS trash talk. Clean, clear and simple. Or don't you have the cha's cha's?? Hodo wrote:
    If airpower alone wouldn't do the job in Iraq,
    We were very restrained in the use of airpower in Iraq due to our desire to limit infrastructure damage and civilian deaths, because we planned on establishing a new regime. In Iran we would attack only the infrastructure utilized in the nuclear program. As I said. If they attacked Iraq, it would be a turkey shoot. Actually, the moderate elements in Iran can be counted on to obtain power after we destroy the nuclear weapons. BTW - You wrote:
    In view of shrub's track record, stop tellin' me what you fookin' believe and get back to me if and when you actually know something.
    Uh. Such logic. Can you tell me what Bush's track record has to do with what I believe vs what I know? Slow down Charlie, your claims are giving you a bad case of the "laugh at." As for your concern about oil. Why don't we drill in ANWAR? Off the coast of CA? Better yet, put up windmills off Martha's Vineyard? Reactors in Boston? Bangkok? NIMBY???? SD - All of your conjecture works for me. Al writes:
    Now, if Iran's nuclear weapons are not a threat to the US or to Israel, at least not in a first strike, then they can't be the reason why the US would risk attacking Iran.
    For the same reason we attacked Iraq. We can not allow them to build a weapon that can easily be given to any number of terrorist groups for use against any country they desire. Good grief, Al. Do you actually believe we can trust the current Iranian regime? Pat - You amuse me. Got any proof that Bush is a coward? You ever flown a military jet fighter?

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    Attcking Iran (and Syria) has long been a PNAC goal:
    The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the 2000 presidential elections. The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East: "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" Distinct from theater wars, the so-called "constabulary functions" imply a form of global military policing using various instruments of military intervention including punitive bombings and the sending in of US Special Forces, etc. Constabulary functions are contemplated in the first phase of US actions against Iran.
    William Kristol (founder of PNAC) has written:
    ''The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East,'' wrote Kristol ... ''The next great battle - not, we hope, a military battle - will be for Iran. We are already in a death struggle with Iran over the future of Iraq,'' added the editor, who is closely associated with Richard Perle and other neo-conservatives in the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board (DPB).
    With 14 (16?) permanent bases now established on the oil fields of Iraq, and possibly Iran as well Syria next, and with US military power established next door to Saudi Arabia, the US, if it is not now stretched too thin, is attempting to control and ensure its access to the worlds energy supply. And to deny it to whom? There is only one threat large enough, but not yet strong enough, to challenge America's economic and military preeminence as the worlds only superpower. Revvin Up The China Threat:
    In this new century the injunction to prevent the emergence of a new rival "that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union" can apply only to China, as no other potential adversary possesses a credible capacity to "generate global power."


    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:52:24 AM EST
    In Iran we would attack only the infrastructure utilized in the nuclear program.
    I would be that those super accurate munitions would "accidently" hit the oil infrastructure Also some of the facilities are probably safe from conventional bombs and even the conventional "bunker buster" munitions.
    Actually, the moderate elements in Iran can be counted on to obtain power after we destroy the nuclear weapons
    This is a key assumption in the selling of the attack. In fact it is just more "dont worry be happy" nonnsense we heard before Iraq. Where are the roses?
    As for your concern about oil. Why don't we drill in ANWAR? Off the coast of CA? Better yet, put up windmills off Martha's Vineyard? Reactors in Boston? Bangkok?
    Irrelevant argument. The ME has the largest supplies of energy in the world.
    SD - All of your conjecture works for me.
    Yeah yeah. You can expect Russia and China to give up without a fight. I don't think so. They will retaliate even if its economically.
    For the same reason we attacked Iraq.
    Oil since they knew Iraq did not have WMDs The real reason the US does not want Iran to have nukes is that once they do, the US will no longer be able to do what they want, i.e. deterrence. Israel has 100 nukes, has not signed the NPT and has never been inspected. Iran has signed the NPT and has been inspected. The US simply doesn't want anyone to be able to deter what they do.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:57:41 AM EST
    Actually, the moderate elements in Iran can be counted on to obtain power after we destroy the nuclear weapons
    A further comment. The invasion of Irag helped the hardline Mullahs to take control again based on fear of the US. An attack on Iran will just validat what the Mullahs are saying. Think of the US response to 9/11. So PPJ's line is the classic neocon theorem: force will solve everything, even political issues.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 09:50:40 AM EST
    SD, PPJ's clueless remark reminds me of the remarks about "They'll be throwing flowers and greeting us as liberators" that were made before the war. Everyone knows how well those predictions turned out....................

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    SD writes:
    The real reason the US does not want Iran to have nukes is that once they do, the US will no longer be able to do what they want, i.e
    Good heavens,that is ecactly right. Do you have a problem with keeping our enemies at bay? BTW - I note that you use the third person when writing:
    the US will no longer be able to do what they want
    Does that answer my question? Here I was thing you were a US citizen. Hodo! Last call on the bet! Backed out, eh??

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:42:04 PM EST
    Hodo - No. You have made statements, but you have never indiated that you accept the bet as stated. Do you or don't you? Yes or no? Or are you trying to wiggle? BTW - It aint going to a jury. ;-) SD - Here is a nice link that describes the Iranians you think we can do business with it. In part it says. For more click here.
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hard-line president who has said the Holocaust was a myth, now has charged that European countries sought to complete the genocide by establishing a Jewish state in the midst of Muslim countries
    more
    Last month, Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust, in which Nazi Germany killed six million Jews, was a myth. After global outrage over the comments, he said that Europeans, if they insist the Holocaust occurred, should cede some of their territory for a Jewish state
    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    PPJ head of propaganda and bad logic has returned for our amusement.
    Do you have a problem with keeping our enemies at bay
    Thats not we are talking about is it now? We are talking about the US and its actions in the ME which many consider imperialistic. PPJ's attempt at a funny shows his ignorance of the English language. Your point concerning the comments by Ahmadinejad is well clueless. Obviously he was being provocative. So you seem to be saying if someone says something stupid we can bomb them. Bush better hope that doesn't work both ways.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 06:56:11 AM EST
    Morning Sunshine: So we have ourselves a wager. Good. Let's see what else of note we have from Hodo:
    However, I've also heard the same shiite from Catholics and evangelicals in the good old USA.
    How mny nuclear programs did these idoits you refer to have? BTW - I find it interesting that everytime anyone refers to Iran's President's obvious hatred of Israel and the west, and his obvious plans to attack as soon as he can, there is always a strawman whipped out to distract eveyone. Because you close with:
    But I also have no doubt that shrub, cheney, the white trash taliban of falwell and robertson and their kukluxchristianbigots as well as the corporate slime who are the modern day robber barons are just as great an enemy if not more so.
    Charlie, if you think these people are as great an enemy as the radical Moslems, then you definitely need help.
    Actually, there's not much evidence that he's anything but a coward. As for flying a jet fighter, there's not much evidence shrub has either.
    Really? You are either parnoid or the master of overstatements. Either condition will keep you in trouble. And if you knew anything about military people, you would know that they are masters of understatement. But you don't. You know only what you have heard, or what you have seen on TV and the movies. Sad. As someone who spent 10 years in Naval Aviation I honor your Father's service. It's a pity he has a son who doesn't recognize a threat even after it kills 3000 people. Yes, sad indeed.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 07:02:08 AM EST
    his obvious plans to attack as soon as he can,
    proof? Israel has 100 nukes. Iran is not attacking anytime soon. My understanding is that Iran's airforce is also in disrepair. But you keep pounding that drum of fear.

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 07:38:00 AM EST
    Soccerdad (quoting Jim)
    But you keep pounding that drum of fear.
    It is one of his habits isn't it, Soc? But then again, what else has he got left? ;-) ----- President Ahmadinejad is not the real power in Iran and has the support of only about 35% of the population. Real power in Iran resides with the Mullahs, under Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader, who did not hesitate to use that power to ensure that whoever is the next president of Iran, it will not be someone who attempts to challenge them. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is Iran's spiritual leader and highest authority. His voice overrides all others in the hierarchy. Ahmadinejad will be very visible but not very powerful in the presidency, which has grown considerably weaker as an institution in the past eight years. With Khamenei rather than Ahmadinejad firmly in control, Iran's domestic and foreign policies are likely to be less extreme than many have predicted. Khamenei will want to avoid triggering US interference in Iran's domestic affairs. He also will want to maintain or expand Iran's economic relations with EU countries and avoid a US-EU united front against Iran. --Mark Gasiorowski, Professor of political science and director of international studies at Louisiana State University The country's highest-ranking religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has already warned his protégé that he was "elected to solve the country's social problems, not to go to war with Israel." At the same time, Khamenei upgraded the powers of the Expediency Council, which is charged with oversight over the government. Even the conservative majority in the parliament is making life difficult for Ahmadinejad, forcing him to submit four candidates for the post of oil minister before providing their stamp of approval -- clearly in a reflection of their aversion to turning over control of the country's oil revenues to a loyal follower of Ahmadinejad. There are even rumors floating around in Tehran that Ahmadinejad's days could be numbered, and that pragmatic forces within the regime are preparing for a coup. Apparently, Iran's political elite wants to prevent this president from turning the country into even more of a pariah on the international stage. DER SPIEGEL, December 19/05

    Re: Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Plannin (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    Afternoon Sunshine! John Wayne never served... Duhhh. Now that is news. Anybody say he did? What I said was that you didn't, so that means you will never be able to really understand the military. All you can do us talk about someone else's service, and then insult those who did by comparing them to felons. That defines you pretty well. Why don't you go get another picture made standing by a jet fighter. Yes sir, that takes real cha's cha's. And the next time you start to think military aviation is not dangerous, ask your insurance agent about the price of life insurance should you decide to be a military pilot.
    The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.
    As for the "AWOL" claim about Bush, that has been as discredited as the Rathergate memo. Read a bit. Educate yourself.

    Downer of the Year: Report Bush May Be Planning Military Strike on Iran | 37 comments (37 topical)