Letters to the Editor

Fall surprise?

July 7, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

Much has been made of a campaign aide's comment on how a terrorist attack could help one presidential candidate. But a far more likely "October surprise" is an Israeli attack on Iran, following their recent trial run. It could not happen without Bush administration approval, since it would require use of U.S.-controlled airspace and would not be effective without U.S. cruise missiles also striking the thick concrete of the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant.

The charge that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons now is deemed unlikely by the U.S.'s own National Intelligence Estimate. And the effects of the attack on stability in the Middle East would be disastrous. Besides, the attack itself would be a military disaster, for which reason Secretary of Defense Gates and military leaders are reportedly opposing it. Moreover, if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, we might be longing for the good old days of $4 gas.

Are politicians doing anything to head off this debacle? If it happens, will they put a stop to it, or even criticize it? Does anybody in public life have the courage to say that not everything the Israeli government wants to do is necessarily right?

William O. Scott,
Lawrence

Comments

Daytrader23 6 years, 9 months ago

A vote for McCain, is a vote to flush America down the drain.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"You would like that, wouldn't you?"No, I wouldn't, which is precisely why I don't like the violence-worshipping mindset of BushCo and its supporters, such as you, Kevin.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

At some point, Blix may have had some doubts about Iran's weapons programs, but he has clearly stated that he was allowed to conduct full inspections in the run-up to the war, and found nothing. And nothing has been found since the war.You're wrong, Kevin. No spinning or taking out of context will change that. And continued attempts to do so make you more than wrong-- they make you a liar.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

"First, Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty."So has the US, which requires us to work towards disarmament. So given the fact that Iran has been assessed to not be currently developing nuclear weapons, BushCo is in greater violation of the NPT than Iran.So if we follow BushCo logic, shouldn't the US be subjected to a massive bomb attack-- one that would most certainly include targets in the Kansas City area?

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

And based on one far-left source a schlock poster on this site says he believes Ahmadinejad, a man who has denied the existence of the Holocaust, when he repeatedly lies to his own people and to the world? Get real.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 9 months ago

We must build a high wall around the fall.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

What you leave out, Kevin, is that it took Cheney camping out at Langley, an unprecedented move, to cook the intelligence to get what he wanted, or that the inspectors on the ground in Iraq were finding quite the opposite result-- a result confirmed since the invasion.No, this is not about national security-- like Iraq, this will be a war to make the world safe for war.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 9 months ago

I remember "October Surprise" predictions in 2004 and 2006 from Mr. Scott's ilk. Conspiracy theorists rarely rest!

Chris Golledge 6 years, 9 months ago

Devil's advocate conspiracy theorist here:What if things like peak oil, climate change, and an unsustainable world population level were real? What would the leaders of most powerful nation(s) on earth be doing? Would they not be seeking ways to establish a presence in the areas of strategic importance (where energy is all important)? Would they admit that is what they are doing? What if our executive branch truly believes (and possibly with good reason) that it is in the best interest of American citizens to be in a position to secure energy resources for our nation when crunch time hits? It would explain events of the past couple of decades fairly well. I'm just tossing out the idea that it may be that Bush Co. is pursuing the nation's interests with great prejudice, whether we like their methods or not.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 9 months ago

BTW, if I were Iran's leaders, and some big gorilla had just invaded two of my neighbors, I'd be looking around earnestly for the biggest stick I could find.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 9 months ago

In December of 2006, the world on the street was that Cheney was about to resign. The President would appoint Jeb as the new VP and then resign making Jeb the new President. That was a bunch of hooey too.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

Maxipad1, what does posting links to purported anti-Semitic sites have to do with the fact that Ahmadinejad openly hates Jews, has vigorously sought the destruction of Israel, and has denied the existence of the Holocaust?

Chris Golledge 6 years, 9 months ago

Saddam's non-cooperation with the inspectors is not so hard to understand. It was in his best interest to make his neighbors believe he had WMD, but it was also in his best interest to make the US believe that he did not. If he allowed the US to force him to play his cards face up, he looses the game with his neighbors. So, he played his cards close to his chest, with just enough hints and bluffs to leave both sides in question. Unfortunately for him, this was ill-interpreted by the US.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 9 months ago

This review of Blix's book directly contradicts your contention, Kevin.http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1173509,00.html"It was not merely that US and British intelligence was poor. Blix argues that the certainties of the Bush and Blair circles influenced the spies rather as they influenced the media. As the US disarmament expert Greg Thielmann put it, it was as if the US administration was saying: "We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Blix is quite withering about some of the intelligence passed by the US to Unmovic involving giant drones, mobile bio-laboratories, aluminium pipes supposedly for centrifuges, and uranium yellowcake from west Africa.The immense US military build-up in Kuwait, though effective in pushing the Iraqis to concessions, had its own sinister momentum. As the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told Blix on February 28 2003, it was hard to keep an army sitting. The hot weather was coming on apace.When, on March 7, Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency reported to the Security Council that Iraq had greatly improved its work with the inspectors, the Americans reacted by attempting to pressurise and undermine the two men and even, conceivably, to spy on them. "I could not exclude the possibility," he writes, "that the US had managed to crack our secure fax.""

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

The U.N. is a pointless and should be abolished.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Max1:"It isn't our decision to be made."What a surprise, a liberal ignores my argument to make a tangential and pointless remark.First, we have an agreement with Iraq to stay through the end of this year. So we COULD decide to leave sooner, and therefore we could argue whether we should leave immediately (however, you will probably dodge this).Second, an agreement is highly likely to occur, so maybe we should make that assumption, even if solely for the sake of argument. However, my guess is you will avoid my direct question like most liberals do.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

Maxipad1, your last response again demonstrates your inability to convey any kind of rational position. Any attempt to compare Ahmadinejad with anyone in this country except an Islamofascist terrorist is tournament-level lame.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 9 months ago

spiderman, you should get yourself a popsicle. It's a cool and fruity treat that's very refreshing on a hot summer day.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

One of the biggest weaknesses of the UN Security Council is the fact that any one of the permanent members can veto the actions of the entire council. This enabled the former Soviet Union to block any condemnation of its actions or the actions of its client states. The only time that the Soviet Union did not cast a veto was when the Korean War began. At that time they were boycotting the UN over the fact that the PRC was not seated as a permanent member in place of Nationalist China. It is interesting to note that the Soviet representative never missed another UN Security Council meeting. It is true that the US has also used the veto option to its advantage. The worrisome point is that with at least two members of the Security Council being at least unfriendly if not outright hostile to the US, then nothing substantial will ever be done by the Council, at least not where it intersects with the national interests of one of the permanent members. This results in a hamstrung organization. The General Assembly has devolved into a body dominated by totalitarian dictators of every stripe none of whom have any good intentions toward the US. Some cite this as evidence that we are evil, saying that if we were not so evil, then more of these countries would like us. That is an odd logic chain. The reason so many of these countries do not like us is because we are opposed to their objectives of subjegating and oppressing either their own peoples or others. Now please don't run out and claim that the US is as guilty as they. If that argument were true, most of Europe and all of Japan would be subject nations of the US. That they are not is the argument to the opposite.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

Max1:I see you subscribe to Meridian Magazine. That means there is a good chance I know or am at least acquainted with you. I wonder which of the many you are?Regarding Iran. My reference there was to specific speeches given by their President and their Supreme Ayatollah. It doesn't matter whether or not you or I believe as they do, all that matters is that they believe. IF they truly believe that bringing about the apocalypse would bring the coming of their Mahdi, then they are likely to act on that.As for the issue of Romney.First, that was my personal opinion which I believe I am entitled to have.Second, although a subscriber to Meridian Magazine you are apparently not familiar with Mormon or LDS history. Nor, are you familiar with the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, God told the Prophet Samuel that Israel's desire for a king so that they would be like the nations around them was a rejection of HE, their true king. Now understand that I am NOT speaking for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, it is a frimly held belief among us that there is only true religion, one true doctrine. To many, who have espoused the many paths to the top of the hill argument, that sounds radical and unfriendly. Please note, we do not demand anyone join us. There is no "sword or the Koran" approach here. We do send forth thousands of missionaries both within the US and abroad in an effort to persuade others to join us, but there is no coercion. IF, as we believe, there is only one true religion, then the public rejection of someone for high public office primarily on the basis of his or her religion could easily be construed as a rejection of not only the individual but also the religion/truth he embodies. If that offends you, that is your problem. It does not bother me that you are offended. Nonetheless, I stand by my statement.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Duplenty...For some reason I responded to your last comment even though I should have known better since you are infamous for not being able to comprehend simple logic and can only make fallacious remarks. I can see you are clearly trying to dodge the question I posed so I will not waste anymore time responding to you.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

I would suggest that Mr. Scott, the writer of this letter, and most of those who have posted here should acquire a copy of the NIE being cited and read it closelly and carefully paying particular attention to the footnotes. Why?See pg 6, para A, footnote 1. The NIE states it is their belief that the design work was stopped. Please note that the NIE makes a point that the civilian enrichment can easily be dual use: power production AND weapons production. In essence, the NIE states the design team stopped. What the NIE does not conclusively state is why? Do recall that recent revelations show that the Khan network out of Pakistan most likely sold to Iran a working desing for a nuclear warhead for a missile. Additionally, in any development work one must eventually move from mock ups to real materials. Please note that the NIE indicated suspension closely coincides with the uptick in Iranian enrichment. Is it possible that the "suspension" was because Iran needed to acquire sufficient fissile materials before they could proceed to the next step?Additionally, if you will actually read the NIE completely, the writers make painful point that Iran possesses the technical know how to move rapidly from a "civilian" program to a "military/weapon" program. The NIE makes the point that the only thing needed is a political decision by the Iranian government to move to a weapons program. In other words, the civilian program could easily mask or lay the groundwork for a weapons program.More recent reports, particularly in the Telegraph of London, raise disturbing questions as to whether or not Iran has made the decision to initiate/restart a weapons program.Please also compare the difference between the Libyan confirmation of the end of their weapons program and the refusals of the Iranians.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

I thought liberals considered themselves progressive and forward looking, so rather then dwelling on the past and why we got into the war (with 20/20 hindsight), how about we look to the future and discuss whether we should stay in Iraq.Given the military and political progress in Iraq, I think it is in our nation's interest to remain.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

To continue:Various postings here have made the argument that we "let" the Pakistanis and Indians acquire nuclear weapons so why shouldn't we be able to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran. First, I very much doubt anyone can prove that the US aided or allowed either India or Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons. Second, it can be argued that the Pakistanis were responding to the existing Indian nuclear program and did so as a means of deterring an Indian attack on Pakistan. Please note, that since the advent of the Pakistani bomb, both Pakistan and India have beem much more circumspect about their ongoing conflict. Both sides are completely vulnerable to whatever nuclear weaons the other side has so it behooves both to behave better. This is similiar to the deterrent doctrine in place between the US and the former USSR as well as the PRC. Commonly it is called MAD--an appropriate acronym. It must also be noted that it works.Can this be applied to Iran? Deterrence presumes that all parties have something they value that the other parties can threaten. However, if one is faced with a fanatic, particularly a religious fanatic, standard deterrence fails. For proof on a smaller scale please remember the Kamikazi attacks of World War II. Those were, in essence, religiously motivated. Is the Iranian leadership similarly or even more vigorously religiously motivated? It is difficult to prove this conclusively as I don't think any of us can peer into the mind of either the Iranian President nor the Mullahs. However, judging by the increasing number of public comments by both the Iranian President and some of the Mullahs, to include their Supreme Ayatollah, it would appear that there is a significant degree of religious belief that Iran is destined to bring about the coming of the Mahdi. This suggests that the Iranian leadership is willing to bring on an apocalypse to bring forth the Mahdi. If this is so, then Iran must most certainly not be allowed the means of achieving that objective.

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

"First, I very much doubt anyone can prove that the US aided or allowed either India or Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons."Didn't we (the U.S) sell or give a whole bunch of nuclear info to India in the last couple of years? I remember seeing that on the news, but can't remember exactly what or when, but I do remember that it was info regarding nuclear weapons.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Beatrice:"we should stay to prevent a civil war (which has already been going on there for the last several years)"There has been major sectarian violence for years, but it could rise to Darfur like levels if we leave too soon. We should stay to prevent this since the sectarian violence is decreasing. Any withdrawal should be preconditioned on training the Iraqis to prevent this sort of violence (which we are doing). "despite the fact that the people who we are trying to "liberate" are telling us they want us to leave."The Iraqi government wants us to stay, who represent the people. Also the minority wants us to leave because we protect democracy, meaning the majority have a larger voice, unlike when Saddam was in charge. It is a power struggle, we have not stirred the pot, we have taken sole power away from the minority and given it back to the people, and the minority is pissed off about it. I agree the planning of the war was poor, but that does not change the facts that it is now going better."If we are there for simply humanitarian reasons, then why aren't we in the Sudan?"There are good arguments we should be in Sudan, however America only has so many resource, we are already in Iraq, and the government of Iraq wants us there unlike in Sudan."I know that is the past, but should we support the party that put us there?"One should vote for a brighter future, not vote against a party because of a bitter past. If we are going to punish people then we should also punish everyone who voted for the war including the Dems. JFK was the first president to escalate the war in Vietnam, does that mean one should never vote for a Democrat?The analogy between Iraq and a car is specious. One gets use out of the car after fixing it up. It would be a closer analogy if you spend $5000 fixing up a car yesterday and then abandon the car the next day. I could make your same car argument about whether we should stay in certain regions of the U.S. with all of the crime and homicides.One should support McCain because he will not prematurely leave Iraq when things are going well. Oil prices are a result of supply and demand. Iraq produces a small fraction of the world supply (I think somewhere between 3 and 5%)The reasons why a premature withdrawal is a bad idea are the ones I previously listed, including but not limited to security interests, humanitarian compassion, and regional considerations.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

To RR:I concur with you regarding the lapse in intelligence regarding the maturity of both the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs. What I was trying to show was that the claim that the US aided or allowed such was very dubious. Very dubious indeed.Now, since I am here, I wish to address the matter of the North Korean nuclear program.The claim that the North Koreans successfully detonated a nuclear device is open to doubt. From unclassified sources and newspaper reports it appears that what the North Koreans achieved was a nuclear event--probably a fizzle--in which their bomb design did not produce the outcome expected. Unfortunately, for the North Koreans, the "fizzle" did unmask their intentions and capabilities, especially to the PRC. I certainly hope no one here is under the delusion that the PRC would tolerate another nuclear armed nation in Asia. The PRC has to accept the Russians and the US as we had nuclear capability before the PRC did. But, the PRC leadership is not going to allow a loose cannon nation to obtain and deploy nuclear weapons. I frimly believe that the only reason the North Koreans have come as clean as they have is that the PRC made some very defiinite and blunt threats behind closed doors. Do note that practically all of the petroleum products available in North Korea come from the PRC. If the PRC should close the spigot, North Korea would collapse faster than a deflating balloon. While my viewpoint would be nearly impossible to prove, it is logical and in keeping with stated PRC objectives. It is also in keeping with some of the veiled language used by the PRC in the matter.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 9 months ago

Maxipad1, please step back for a minute and consider the following: In your attempt to back up the ridiculous assertions you have made regarding Ahmadinejad, which I have pointed out, you then (1) post references to purported anti-Semitic links that have nothing to do with Ahmadinejad or Iran, and (2) after I have simply inquired what the possible connection could be between these links and Ahmadinejad, you then suggest that I would advocate dropping a nuclear weapon on St. Marys, Kansas, a community in this state? Is this what a steady diet of the filth that appears on far-left blog sites does to people?

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Beatrice:You are a paradigm of the problem most liberals have today; they can't see past their anger of why we originally invaded Iraq to see there legitimate reasons for remaining in Iraq. For the sake of argument let's just say you are completely right that Bush lied about Iraq. This does not change the significant reasons for the U.S. to remain in Iraq, which include but are not limited to; preventing a Darfur-like ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence, protecting the Iraqis against Al-Qaeda in Iraq (and prevent the spread of Al-Qaeda), give the Iraqis liberty, freedom, and democracy, thus providing a buffer and counter to Iran's theocracy, possibly altering the entire Middle East, and protecting another U.S. ally and future trading partner.If we immediately withdraw from Iraq it will descend into an all-out civil war, creating even more refugees, destabilizing the region threatening our allies such as Israel and Kuwait, and just like Afghanistan become a haven for terrorists. We will have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and lots thousands of American lives for nothing. Obama knows this, which is why he has toned down his rhetoric regarding Iraq. In fact he has barely mentioned Iraq since the surge, which he opposed and McCain was a huge proponent of, has been extremely successful.Do you not see the logic in remaining in Iraq when the situation has dramatically improved, shows signs it will continue to improve; and when the U.S. has vital interest, and well as a humanitarian duty?

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

Duplenty:"You're not the least bit interested in the particulars of what has turned out to be a disasterous decision?"What a surprise, a liberal twists my words and then universalizes them. Duplenty, you have just earned a Typical Liberal Blogger Award. I didn't say the reasons we go into the war don't matter; I am pointing out that many liberals are so bitter, stuck on living in the past, and refuse to get over this issue which will be endlessly debated, rather than concerning themselves with the future of our nation. The truth is that liberals cannot win the argument about why we should immediately withdraw from Iraq and so they avoid the issue.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

max1..."Afghanistan was too much of a bother for Bush, because he was busy fabricating false reports about Iraq."Again you dodge my question about the future in Iraq. Perhaps attempting to engage in a discussion with you is as pointless as attempting one with 'duplenty'. You are unable to counter my argument that we should stay in Iraq, which further proves I am correct.I realize there are left-wing crazies out there like you and 'duplenty' who will rant, rave, and completely make stuff up, but you should realize that you are setting a precedence for every right-wing crazy if Obama is elected. You reap what you sow, just some food for thought.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

RR:At the risk of being declared a reactionary (as opposed to being called a radical), I question the value of expanding the UN security council. Frankly, I question the value of the UN in general. This skepticism is based on the UN's dubious record of preventing/ending armed conflict and on the increasingly incredible examples of corruption being revealed almost weekly.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

ndmoderate:I presume you are referring to the recent nuclear agreement between India and the US. To my knowledge, the agreement does not involve the transfer of weapons technology to India. It may involve the transfer of technology to be used to make their weapons more secure. Also, please note that the Indian bombs were detonated May 11, 1998 and May 13, 1998. This would predate the current India-US agreement by many years.

not_dolph 6 years, 9 months ago

Sven...oh, sorry, I mean spiderman. Did this LTE hit a little too close to the motherland for you? I thought you were more into new age religions now. Why don't you post some of your writings and publications from Jewish Voice for Peace?

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

Satirical, it is clear that we can't immediately withdraw, but we need to be heading toward the door with keys in hand. Your argument goes that we should stay to prevent a civil war (which has already been going on there for the last several years) and despite the fact that the people who we are trying to "liberate" are telling us they want us to leave. Well, we haven't prevented a civil war, just stirred the pot to get ourselves in the middle of one because of a complete lack of an exit strategy. If we are there for simply humanitarian reasons, then why aren't we in the Sudan? If Iraq becomes a hotbed for terrorists, as you note is the case with Afghanistan, then what is that to say about our going into Iraq and not focusing on Afghanistan in the first place? I know that is the past, but should we support the party that put us there? Further, the suggestion that we should stay to lose more American lives and spend many more billions of dollars (while we continue to cut taxes for the wealthy) simply because we already have lost lives and spent money there is ridiculous. Think of the analogy of owning a car that needs constant repairs, a real lemon. At some point, you must decide to either buy a new car or just keep throwing money at the old car. If you buy a new car, does that mean all the earlier repairs were really for nothing? Finally, if, for argument's sake, Bush did lie and got us into Iraq under false pretenses, why should the American people support the candidate from his party who backed him all the way? If he didn't lie, but just completely bungled his way to where we are today, why should we put in office the guy that is standing along side of him saying we can be there another 100 years?Remember, the key is this wasn't for nothing. Even if they weren't able to get their hands on Iraqi oil, the conflict made the world market nervous and oil prices have skyrocketed, thus assuring a win/win for the oil companies. We all know that keeping the oil companies happy is the real reason we waged Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) in the first place. Finally, finally, you haven't given one good argument on why staying the course that Bush created with McCain is a better plan than a timely withdrawal as Obama proposes.

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

Yes, bkgarner, I just looked some stuff up on this and you're right - and the current deal that I mentioned was more for civilian power production, although one of the sticking points (the deal has not gone through yet) is that anti-proliferation folks in both India and the U.S. are worried about what could be done with spent fuel (making weapons, I guess).Apparently there is a chance that the deal will not go through, depending on upcoming elections in both countries.I also agree with RR that India should have a permanent seat on the UNSC (I have no opinion about Brazil), given their population and their growing political and military power. US-India relations are also important for the future. In my mind it is certainly good worldwide PR for the US to have a strong ally in a largely Hindu and Muslim country run by Communists and Socialists...

chet_larock 6 years, 9 months ago

""You reap what you sow, just some food for thought."That's funny, that seems to be what's happening to the GOP at this very moment:duplenty, why do you "waste" satirical's precious time with comments like that? shame on you.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 9 months ago

RestoreReason,If memory serves, Saddam's first words upon being captured were something like, "America, why?" If that is correct, it would be evidence that he really did not feel that America had good reason to invade Iran. If he did not believe that America had good reasons for invading, he probably did not believe that we would, until it was too late to stop.Most of politics is posturing and bluff. War happens when bluffs are called. Even in war, bluff is essential. Would Japan have surrendered so much to our advantage if they had known we had only those two bombs?

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

Satirical, perhaps liberals are bitter about this war because it isn't a thing of the past, as we are still in the thick of it. If our nation's leaders (who are still in office) lied about or misrepresented the reasons for getting us into the war, wouldn't this be a major factor in the determining of a future course of action? Sorry to tell you, but us liberals aren't just going to throw up our hands and say, "Oh well, what's done is done. Lets just stay the course, and can't we now all just get along." The best future action for Iraq is to make sure we elect Barack Obama as our next President, since he realizes the reasons for going into the war were wrong. He will work to get us out of that mess. McCain, on the other hand, still believes that we were correct to invade, so why would he do anything different from what Bush has done, which is stay the course? In McCain's mind, he can see us there for another 100 years (and yes, he did say that!). That isn't a future I care to invision.

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

Satirical, regarding the Iraqi government wanting us to stay, from today's newspaper is this: "Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki publicly confirmed Monday that his government was leaning toward concluding a short-term security pact with the United States instead of a broader agreement that would last for years." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=iraq%20withdrawal&st=cse&oref=sloginIn other words, GET OUT!Is it surprising that they don't want an occupying nation to stay, and that they want to say when it is time for us to depart, and that the departure should be sooner rather than later? While we have destroyed things to such an extent that a full and immediate withdrawal isn't possible, recognized too by Obama, we do need to be putting our attention into leaving, not staying. To think we should stay for 100 years is wrong and John McCain is the wrong person for the Presidency. This is true, even if we do as you would like and we ignore the wrong reasons we are there in the first place and all the wrong reasons we are still there five years after celebrating "Mission Accomplished." Obama for President!

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

I don't drink kool-aid. I drink your milkshake.

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

RR, so now you like Clinton and what he had to say? Saddam didn't have WMDs, the reason given for invading Iraq, so obviously we shouldn't have invaded. To say that Saddam intended to make them in the future is speculative, at best. Again, and if you don't believe me believe our President, yellowcake is not the same as a WMD. Instead, we should have maintained the no-fly zones and continued to prevent their mobility. We should have focused our attention on Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. This is what Obama has been saying.I drink your milkshake, too.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

Fall surprise?Option 1: If Obama is elected. Either US unilateral or US-Israeli joint or Israeli unilateral with US consent strike against Iran between election day and inauguration.Option 2: If McCain is elected. Either US unilateral or US-Israeli joint or Israeli unilateral with US consent strike against Iran between election day and mid-2009 which is the now accepted date by which Iran may have enough P2 centrifuges up and running to achieve weapons grade enrichment.

Daytrader23 6 years, 9 months ago

Okay enough of should we or shouldn't we have gone to Iraq. This article is about Israel attacking Iran, who controls the Strait of Hormuz in which 20% of the worlds oil is transported through. HELLO $15 PER GALLON!! This attack would be the one that sends the U.S into a great depression. I hate to inform you but we don't have any money left, we can't afford a new war. Hell we can't even afford a new office tables the way we keep spending borrowed money. The U.S is standing on the edge of a very steep cliff, this would be that shove that sends us over.

Satirical 6 years, 9 months ago

bkgarner...max1 likely just did a google search of your name, and my guess is s/he does not subscribe to meridian. I agree with your assessment that Romney was rejected partly because of prejudice against his religion, partly fueled by Huckabee's and others' attacks, implying that Mormons are not Christians. Although separately I would argue that the Evangelicals have unfortunately high-jacked the Republican party.However I disagree with the comment you made on Meridian(which max1 quoted), that the rejection of Romney is further evidence of Christ's millennial reign, because (1) Mormons have been persecuted and rejected throughout their history and Romney's rejection is nothing unusual (2) The rejection of Samuel and other prophets in the BOM were of religious leaders, as opposed to Romney who is a civil leader.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

Satirical:You are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish. However, one minor correction. The Samuel I was referencing was not in The Book of Mormon as you suggest with your BOM abbreviation, but in the Old Testament which, last I checked, was still part of The Bible. However, I suppose you made that error in your excitement.

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

"I think the fall surprise will be sometime 11-4 to 01-15 or so, GWB will implement martial law and retain power::now that would be fun!!!"Sadly, I think there are many around here who really would like that. They frequently call the rest of us "anti-American."

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

Max1:A further thought, if you consider my belief that a majority public vote against Romney over primarily his religion to be extreme then what do you make of the fact that there has been a very strong historical bias in the US against Catholics? This bias was so strong that John F Kennedy, the only Catholic every elected president, had to address the issue. Romney made the same effort. Just as there were people in 1960 and before who voted against a man/woman simply because that person was Catholic, there exists today, as evidenced by the Romney campaign and the public opion polls taken regarding him, a sizable portion of the public, as much as 47% in one poll, who would not vote for a "Mormon" simply because of the religion. The anti-Catholic movement in the US was a move against Catholicism not necessarily individual Catholics and their individual beliefs. Why shouldn't I be similarly able to conclude that, given what has happened, that there exists a smiliar attitude among the public at large?

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

Let me say that first and foremost, I was not opposed to Romney as a candidate because he is a Mormon; in my mind that should have nothing to do with holding public office.I watched Romney's "religion" speech, and it immediately fell flat on the floor. He kept touting the rights of Americans to believe what they wish (good so far!), but then kept hounding on the idea that all persons of faith were true Americans--this is where Romney stepped out of bounds for me. He reiterated that to be a true American a person must have faith....wrong, dead wrong. He basically said that if an American does not "have faith" then he/she is not American. His speech refuted his own point, which was to appeal to Americans for toleration of alternate religious views; as soon as he exluded Americans of "no faith," he became what he was decrying.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "What you leave out, Kevin, is that it took Cheney camping out at Langley, an unprecedented move, to cook the intelligence to get what he wanted, or that the inspectors on the ground in Iraq were finding quite the opposite result- a result confirmed since the invasion.""No, this is not about national security- like Iraq, this will be a war to make the world safe for war."And where was our bus-riding clown camped out when he cooked that up?Let's see if that gets deleted. Maybe the award-winning LJW could enlighten us as to the new rules. I see plenty of "stupids" and accusations of other posters being liars here, not to mention numerous infractions of the supposed TOS that are rampant through boards all over this site, but for some reason they're not being deleted - maybe those things only cause removal if they disagree with the LJW editors? Why is it that someone can post completely fabricated lies to the message boards, but when someone calls them a liar they get removed? What standards of so-called journalism are being employed here?As usual, the LJW continues to support trashing our own government and ranting about the paranoid supposition of a possible invasion of Iran, while Saddam continues to get a pass for actually doing so. Lawrence - 28 square miles surrounded by Kansas, just like Oz.

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

Max1:I am puzzled. When did I reference Saddam or Iraq in any of my posts?? Consequently, I do not understand the line of reasoning you are using when you reference myself in your post. Would you care to clarify or are you simply into slinging mud?

not_dolph 6 years, 9 months ago

Hello,The user cool sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com:==============================careful will have to send my brother OLE over with a snowball and some boiled lutfisk !==============================

Brent Garner 6 years, 9 months ago

Max1:A point of clarification. Your association of myself with Mr. Hagee is obviously an attempt to either smear him or myself, or perhaps both of us. However, a little distinction needs to be made.I have never advocated a military strike against Iran as a way to initiate Armeggedon and bring on the Apocalypse and the coming of the Son of God. I presume your citation of Hagee's beliefs was, as you said, to identify or accuse him of being a "crack pot" to use your words.I have advocated and continue to advocate that if Iran is not willing to either forgo enrichment or provide some means of assuring the West that there really isn't a weapons program, then the West, and the US alone if needed, should strike Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.Yes, I am fully cognizant of the catastrophe that would be. However, which would be larger, that catastrophe or the one that would most assuredly occur, based on Iranian rhetoric and public pronouncements, should Iran acquire nuclear weapons and use them either against Israel or against the US or both. Which would be the larger problem? A small catastrophe now or one many times larger later on? The answer should be obvious. However, none of this should be read as an advocacy by myself for an "end times" connection as you, Max1, have tried to force on or suggest about me.

not_dolph 6 years, 9 months ago

Hello,The user cool sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com:==============================i thought that i should really have one more post and go for a 'spiritual number like 21 !"==============================

Commenting has been disabled for this item.