The Chalabi/Iran uproar will give the NeoCons what they want

[bleedingheart]

the reason to invade Iran and blow this already out of control situation out of proportion.

I have heard Wolfowitz and others in that circle (including my stupid senator Santorum) mix up Iraq and Iran in sentences....

They are salivating for a reason to go to Iran....they want to own the middle east and they won't stop until they have subjugated the entire region.

So while some think the Chalabi escapade will make * look bad...it will potentially give them the ammo to say to Joe Q. Public...
"We have been misled by our enemies the Iranians...To war we go again"....
A Three Front War... Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran....what next??? Perhaps the Sauds can export their many princes and princesses to those countries to act as US puppets????

Now I will go and polish my tinfoil cap.

[Renew Deal]

1. I just don't think so.

Bushco and the US have lost all credibility. It would be pure warmongering to do that (which I know Bush is willing to do). What has Iran really done to us? How about we hold the right people responsible. That would be Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfie and the PNAC gang. Bush disregarded the CIA and gave intelligence to an Iranian spy. That's fucked up.

[bleedingheart]

2. the gungho war set are on a rampage....and their nonsense

outweighs any common sense in Washington....so I think it may happen but I do see what you are saying...and I am praying that you are right and I am just caffeine deprived right now.

[Renew Deal]

3. You aren't the only one running that theory.

I have seen that here more than once. I also saw it at FR last night by a few. But they weren't like "Let's nuke Iran." They had the same tone you did. I think it just shows how cynical Bushco has made us all.

[Kahuna]

4. I don't think so. This SHOULD BE the nail on bushco's coffin..

It shows what incompetent, arrogant, idiots they are. This is one more reason for President Kerry to have a full treason investigation started after his inauguration.

[priller]

5. The military won't go for it

We're already stretched extremely thin and Iran will be far, far tougher to invade than Iraq was.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Agreed...

We'll start seeing some massive protests coming from inside the military hierarchy if this even starts getting floated as a serious consideration. It's not even just a matter of manpower that a draft could solve. The logistical and materiel problems would be a nightmare.

[union_maid]

6. No Way

Joe Q. Public wasn't so sure of the reasoning on Iraq as of last week. The front page of Newsday screams "DUPED!". They'll try to spin it, but it won't fly this time. The rest of this administration's time with us will be spent on damage control. If they had any honor they'd consider suicide, every last one of them.

[Speed8098]

7. Not this time

The idiots were duped.

There have been many many threads about Chalabi. We knew this guys M.O., why didn't they.?

There is no way * gets a blank check on this one. He is out at the end of this year. I honestly believe that if this weren't an election year impeachment proceedings would be in debate right now.

Iran has nukes, the chickenhawks know that. Like all bullies, they won't screw with anyone who has the ability to kick their ass.

We all need to take a deep breath, brace ourselves for the sh*t that is going to be coming out and breath a sigh of relief when the election is over and sanity returns to the White House.

We also need to win both houses back so we can try to undo some of the damage that has been inflicted on us since the ripoff in 2000.

8 years of Kerry/Edwards, and 8 more years of Edwards and whomever he chooses. Maybe, just maybe we will be close to normal by then.
For my daughters sake, I hope so

[kentuck]

8. If not Iran, at least Hizbollah....

Because they are supported by Iran, right?

[EdGy]

9. Chalabi was on the blacklist of State and CIA

all along. There were quite a few articles about him in 2002 runup to war, all of which pointed to the fact that State, CIA and others who actually knew something about the region saw Chalabi as a crook, as marginal, as having no contacts or influence in Iraq.

Yet Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush ignored all of that information, they ignored all of the facts, and, in their neocon fantasy phase, put all their eggs in the Chalabi basket.

These criminals should all be thrown in jail. Preferably a cell in Abu Ghraib, with hoods, dogs, and wires.

[H2O Man]

10. Interesting....

Last week, I asked on a post how far bush would go to try to win the election. I said that I had the feeling that his backers were planning to create an incident with Iran. My post received meager response, perhaps four total. But each of those four were well thought out, and the general feeling was that this administration will try to used fear, hatred and violence to cling to power. By the way, the information on Chalabi and Iran is not new .... though I do not remember the exact source (either CNN, MSNBC, or Fox... probably MSNBC) about a month ago, at least one news program reported this a few times. Nothing in detail, just that he may have passed information to Iran. I felt then, as I have since, that a foundation was being laid out to bring our nation into a crisis situation, possibly before November. I am not a panicky person, or prone to the Chicken Little Syndrome, but I know that this fellow & friends have no respect for human life, much less the Constitution. I think that the odds of them making a strike at Iran are about 50-50.

[Bob3]

11. No cause it was the Neo-cons who were played like a violin

nobody is going to listen to them now - they are utterly discredited. What reason could they offer for war? That they were embarrassed? That they got conned? Listening to them would be like asking the investment advice of someone who was scammed by Enron.

Remember they only think they are smart. These are not bright guys.

[patricia92243]

12. we don't have any soldiers, so it won't happen!

[H2O Man]

14. Actually, we have lots of soldiers.

They are stationed in the USA and around the globe. There is no shortage of soldiers anywhere, except perhaps in Afghanistan and Iraq. (And that is open for serious discussion.) But there are more than enough people in the military to fight another war. By 1958, our military was able to fight 3 wars around the globe at any given time. The number of soldiers available is not a factor.

[bemildred]

16. Its not 1958.

USA Today from a month ago:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-04-22-our-view_x.htm

The setbacks have cast doubt on the Pentagon's post-Cold War strategy of
downsizing its fighting force and developing high-tech weapons to replace large
armies. Sticking with plans to transform the military during a protracted and
far-reaching war on terror leaves the U.S. with three unsatisfactory options for
adding the forces it needs:

Pushing troops to their limits. The Pentagon has already resorted to the temporary
fix of lengthening one-year tours of duty by 90 days for 20,000 troops. It also is
barring soldiers from quitting when their contracts are up under a rarely used
order known as "stop-loss." And it has shortened the length of time between
assignments, as some troops have headed from Afghanistan to Iraq. Those stopgap
measures have left many soldiers exhausted and demoralized, jeopardizing future
recruitment and retention, military-personnel experts warn.

Borrowing from elsewhere. The Pentagon has borrowed troops from other posts,
including several thousand from Germany. But shifting too many for too long puts
other missions at risk, such as the hunt for members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
and Pakistan. It also limits the ability of U.S. forces to deal with other potential
trouble spots that might flare up unexpectedly, such as North Korea.

Pressuring allies. Many countries say they'll send forces to Iraq only if the United
Nations is put in charge of peacekeeping. This week, Bush promised the U.N.
would have a "central role" in postwar Iraq beyond its help in setting up elections.
A stepped-up effort to hand the U.N. more control could persuade other nations to
send troops - and reverse decisions this week by Spain, Honduras and the
Dominican Republic to withdraw theirs. But even if the U.S. were to persuade
reluctant countries to help, they don't have many troops to spare. Ivo Daalder, a
military expert at the Brookings Institution, estimates NATO could provide only
about 10,000 forces.

Of course, USA today could be lying.

[H2O Man]

19. Or, they might be right.

Take paragraph #3, for example. It says an option would be to use troops stationed in Germany. You are right, too -- it's not 1958, and the idea of having a large number of American troops in Germany might well out-dated .... unless they are in Germany for reasons other than "defense"....perhaps economic? But the number of soldiers is, in fact, adequate to be able to fight on three fronts.
The other interesting idea mentioned more often these days is the draft. A majority of military leaders are publicly saying that there is no need for a draft, and that the quality of soldier is higher in an all-volunteer force. One possibility rarely mentioned is that a draft creates a psychological imprint on a society geared towards violence and warfare. By extension of this reasoning, the potential for a draft may not be so much to have more soldiers, as to make our culture even more violent, anxious, and suspicious than it already is.
But, again, the military is able to fight on numerous fronts. Our problem in Iraq is not one of a lack of ability to destroy. It's a lack of decency, compassion, and insight coming from the White House.

[OETKB]

15. Chlalabi and the Iranians

From Bob Baer's book, "See No Evil," published 2002, pg6-7:

"It was about a meeting held in late February 1995 in northern Iraq, between Ahmad Chalabi, the head of an Iraqi dissident group, and two Iranian intelligence officers. According to the report, Chalabi told the Iranians the U.S. finally had decided to get rid of Saddam--to assassinate him....The report went on to say that Chalabi had received a telephone call and left the room, giving the Iranians an opportunity to read a letter left conspicuously in the middle of his desk.....

...and I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chalabi had invented this story from scratch...There was no Robert Pope, for one. Nor was there any assassination plan. No one, NSC or otherwise, had asked Chalabi to pass a message to Iran. As for the letter, it was clearly forged."

There is nothing knew about this deceptive and dangerous man, Ahmad Chalabi. He has had previous known connections to Iran. The present news is just suiting somebody's agenda in one of our more clandestine governmental executive agencies. It is again indicative of poor insight and secrecy which is harming us all.

[Jacobin]

17. They are going to have a tough time convincing congress to

start another war, seeing as how the one they just started last year is going so "well"....:eyes:

[Terran]

18. We don't have the military resources

to invade Iran, and won't for a long time. Not only are we spread thin right now because of Iraq and our other commitments, Iraq actually has a well-organized and sizeable military, that won't roll over the way Iraq's did. Unless the neocons are truly insane, no invasion of iran will be happening any time soon.