Bush, two months ago:
President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to liken those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” to appeasers of the Nazis — a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, who has advocated greater engagement with countries like Iran and Syria.
***“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said, in a speech otherwise devoted to spotlighting Israel’s friendship with the United States.
“We have an obligation,” he continued, “to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
This tough guy gibberish was met with the usually raucous applause and fervent cod-piece licking among the usual suspects. This, then, has got to suck:
The United States is to send a top ranking diplomat to attend international nuclear talks with Iran on Saturday, marking a major shift in Washington’s policy on negotiations with Tehran.
Undersecretary of State William Burns will attend the weekend meeting in Geneva between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Tehran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, a US State Department official said.
The United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran and until now has refused to even participate in preliminary discussions with Iranian officials unless Tehran first suspends its nuclear enrichment activities.
What will the response to this be? I see several options here. Option #1 is a pure freak out by the wingnut crowd (if I had to bet money, either someone from Malkin’s enterprise or Commentary will lead the charge), who claim it is more evidence Bush is not a true conservative, all the while claiming McCain would never do something like this. Option #2 is to deny they are actually, you know, negotiating, and Burns is just along for the ride. Option #3 is the tried and true “BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE WORSE.” And the final option is to simply pretend this didn’t happen.
Will be fun to watch.
*** Update ***
I should probably add that from the way I look at things, sending Burns along to these talks is a good thing. Talking to Iran does not mean giving in to them.
*** Update #2 ***
Cernig cites another story, and it appears Option #2 may have been built in to the trip:
Burns will not negotiate with the Iranians nor hold separate meetings, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced. Instead, he will advance the White House’s position that serious negotiations can only begin after Iran suspends its enrichment of uranium.
Whether that is actually true, or just administration face saving, are up for grabs, If true, Cernig states the following:
So Burns won’t speak to the Iranians, won’t be allowed to offer them a single concession, and will only turn up the once to look on with a stony face. That’s not negotiation in good faith – nor, despite the huffing of neocon mouthpieces, is it appeasement – it’s a spoiling attack. His only functions are to offer a fig-leaf to the Bush administration and to intimidate European diplomats behind the scenes.
So maybe I got prematurely excited the Bush Administration might actually do the right thing, although the fact that an anonymous official is the only person claiming he will not negotiate seems suspect.
El Cruzado
I’m betting for “pretend it never happened”.
Echo without Bunnies or Men
Option 3 and 4.
KevinD
What do you think of Cernig’s take on this?
Conservatively Liberal
Once again, Obama is ahead of the curve.
My vote is for ‘this was the plan all along’, with an ‘Obama stole the idea from us’ for the chaser.
calipygian
Option 4: “See? We TRIED negotiations, but the Iranian’s wouldn’t listen. Release the hounds.”
I’m no attack Iran conspiracist, but this has the makings of political cover to me.
tim
“FERVENT CODPIECE LICKING.”
You should think about writing gay leather porn on the side, my friend. ;)
Timothy Troll-hole
Ed Drone
I heard a new one on (I think) Hardball last night (from a Republican whose other comments made him seem like Baghdad Bob on steroids) — “Obama said HE would negotiate, and it’s wrong for the president to do that” (or words to that effect).
Sending a lower-ranking functionary is OK (in particular because he’s only going to “make an appearance,” not “negotiate”), but the top guy can’t say he’s ready to meet with any enemy to see what can be accomplished.
Bush’s position is that Iran has to give up its nukular ambitions BEFORE we talk to them. In other words, “send the merchandise, and then we’ll talk price.” No one would do business with someone like that, so why would a country do horse-trading with the US in that fashion?
Sometimes I see really fantastical, far-fetched and surreal stories on TV, but I’m damned if I can top this madministration for pure science-fiction.
Ed
cleek
he’ll just hang out in the room, jumping around and making faces like Jack Black, trying to get someone to look at him so he can flip them off.
Bubblegum Tate
Precisely…but that’s further down the road. For right now, this is not negotiations, as negotiations are for pussies. They’ll magically turn into negotiations once they need to be defined as such.
SpotWeld
Bush, by all appearances, is the sort of guy who will think it the ultimate height of humor to leave the White House with a note in the Oval Office that will say something along the lines of “I’ve left a turd somewhere in the residential quarters, good luck finding it.” And I further suggest this would be equally funny for him regardless of who his successor is.
I feel his international policies are a reflection of this state of mind.
Punchy
Cali for the win.
“See, bitches? We trriiiieed! We didn’t want to nuke them…without trying first!”
LITBMueller
Option #2 is clearly the public reason:
See??? Listening isn’t appeasing!
But, I also agree with Cernig: Burns will be there to make sure there aren’t any breakthroughs. The Israelis are ready to release their own hounds soon. The last thing the NeoCons want is any light at the end of the tunnell!
The Moar You Know
What in the last eight years could lead you to believe that “the Bush administration might do the right thing” was even a remote possibility?
Man, you’re a poster child for optimism if I ever saw one.
Grand Moff Texan
Uh, no. The president’s own staff confirmed to reporters that Bush was indeed talking specifically about Obama and Carter, even if Bush didn’t have the guts to mention them himself.
.
Dracula
I read this, but keep picturing Montgomery Burns. Him and Smithers trying to convince the Iranians to give him their nuke plant. And having the other diplomats chanting “Boo-urns! Boo-urns!”
Zifnab
Yeah, this looks like a classic ratfuck to me. Burns is just along for the ride, so he can make talk with the European side while dropping off highly classified documented third-person accounts of how Iran plans to nuke Belgrade and Luxenburg with secret cruise missiles being constructed in roving super-secret Iranian missile labs.
He’ll probably just try to piss on any possible negotiation and generally act like a diplomatic asshole. If its a true Bush League plan, he’ll be trying to give under the table bribes or threats to everyone inside earshot.
I don’t have any reason to believe this guy is along for anything more than kicking the hornet’s nest.
Brachiator
There are two constants about Bush. One is that he is stupid, which leads his opponents to underestimate him. The other is that he is stubborn, which makes it dangerous for his opponents to underestimate him. See, for example, how he revoked his daddy’s executive order forbidding offshore drilling because he has consistently and stubbornly wanted to get more drilling done, and saw a way to use rising gas prices to finally get ‘er done.
Bush always looks for the opportunity, when circumstances change, to get his single-minded will accommodated.
Shorter: I don’t see Bush letting his people negotiate with the Iranians. Despite any position that Obama or even McCain might stake out on Middle East policy, Bush is determined to make it impossible for any successor administration do anything other than follow the path that he has already staked out.
Tsulagi
If option 2 isn’t already rigged as Cernig postulates, based on recent behavior, options 3 and 4 are a safe bet. You know, like when last month our horse-fearing Segway riding challenged cowboy Decider decided after talking with the commies to whittle the Axis of Evil down to one. Proclaiming North Korea was no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. Took them off the terrorism watch list; also lifted some trade sanctions.
So does that make him a commie appeaser? Nah, probably just thinks Kim Jong il is cute and a snappy dresser so rewarded him for that.
What did the serious adults like Malkin and Fats Hannity say when Bush professed his newfound admiration for North Korea last month? Don’t recall they said much of anything. Most likely they were still engaged in critical analysis of secret terrorist code in fist bumps.
4tehlulz
QFT
cervantes
I may be paranoid but anybody who isn’t paranoid these days is nuts. If this trip has any purpose, it’s as cover for the coming attack. “We did everything we could to avoid it, we tried diplomacy, but they refused to engage with us. It was a last resort but the Iranians left us no choice.”
Dreggas
This administration doing the right thing? Yeah right.
KevinD
LOL
Face
I think we’ve now reached a matter of when, not if, the US or its proxy strikes them.
calipygian
I seriously doubt that the Preznunt or any in his inner circle brush their teeth, help grannies across the street, wipe their asses and wash their hands after taking a dump, eat a healthy portion of bran, drink eight glasses of water a day or spay and neuter their pets because all of those things are “the right thing to do”.
The Other Steve
Well what the hell do you expect Bush to do? Surrender to Iran!?
That’s insane!
Jody
Without having read the other comments, I’m going to go ahead and declare that this is just cover for Bush’s inevitable Iran invasion. This way he can say “see, we TRIED negotiating. Even sent Burnsy. Hyuk hyuk.” Then the tanks roll in, more chaos ensues, the situation gets out of hand, and it all ends with our military high-tailing it back to Kuwait while the mighty Wurlitzer blames president Obama for going in in the first place.
This situation is win/win, as far as the warmongers on the right are concerned. Since Obama is in the lead, starting yet another war will allow the media to flog the old “Dems weak on defense/McCain the war hero” memes, and should Barack win he’s got one hell of a mess to clean up.
Phoenix Woman
John, whenever Team Bush does something that’s even remotely sensible, chances are they’d just raked a Democrat over the coals for doing or proposing the same thing.
Remember how they opposed the Cleland-Lieberman bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security? Then Unca Karl looked at the polling and found that most Americans favored this, so he arranged for a competing GOP bill to be introduced in Congress.
Same thing when Nancy Pelosi headed a bi-partisan delegation to Syria last year. They and their media surrogates shrieked and shrieked — and then a week later, Condi got her butt onto a plane for Damascus.
By the way: If you’re wondering why Obama’s gone ballistic on the New Yorker cover, it’s because of this:
Dreggas
Nah he only surrenders to Asians….
liberal
John Cole wrote,
Agreed. However…
Why do we have any “issue” with Iran at all? While further nuclear proliferation is regrettable, how is denying Iran (in particular) nuclear weapons a fundamental, crucial national security interest for the US?
Brachiator
OT, but in the same neighborhood. Previously, Bush misdirected military and foreign policy efforts towards Iraq. Now, he is doing the same with Iran. Meanwhile, Afghanistan goes to shit (US troops abandon Afghan outpost):
The surge is working.
liberal
Face wrote,
Fixed.
calipygian
We have an issue with Iran because Mossadegh had the effrontery to try to steal British Petroleum’s oil back in 1953.
Dreggas
Because SHUT UP! That’s why.
zmulls
Yeah, this sure sounds like the “we wanted the inspectors to do the job, but Saddam wouldn’t let them, so we had to attack” kind of meeting.
Maybe Burns will call the Iranian ambassador an upstart.
Svensker
Bingo.
liberal
calipygian wrote,
Yeah, understood, though if thought of as a barfight without regard to morality, I’d say we got the better of that one—f*cking up their country for decades, versus the hostage taking.
But I don’t think that’s the reason we’re at odds with them now…
liberal
Dreggas wrote,
Hmm…maybe someone much more clever than I could adapt the lyrics of Cheap Trick’s “Surrender”?
Jeff
I had a thought this morning that, willingly or not, maybe Bush’s MO is to start things off really, really wrong, continue wrong, get a little worse, then, just when people completely stop paying attention, offer a glimmer of hope.
Still, I don’t care if the Garden of Eden in re-established in Tehran, his legacy is going to be as one of the worse. We’re talking Millard Fillmore levels.
Big E
man, it’s gotten so bad nowadaze, that Bush et al. don’t even try to hide their collective mendacity and stupidity.
Every question put to them is ignored by claims of executive privilege, with their middle fingers held high asking, “whatcha gonna do about it”?
Bush & Co. can do and say anything and not be called on it, no matter how outrageous it is. Dana Perino could stand at a lectern during a briefing and answer every question with the word ‘blue’ and not one of the press corps would get overly agitated.
It would not surprise me to see Bush & Co. plunge America into a war with Iran, establish perpetual chaos in the mid-east, declare martial law in America and suspend the constitution and the bill of rights until ‘they’ decide it’s ‘safe’.
I mean really, not to sound too off the grid, BUT, if you think about it a little, who would stop them?
certainly not the Dems…..
DFD
Why do we have a Central Command? Oil and Israel.
Any shift in regional power is seen as a dangerous destabilization of an oil producing area vital to our nation’s economy. A nuclear armed Iran is inherently destablizing and is seen by some as a existential threat to Israel. With both oil and Israel taken into account, I’m in agreement with the others who say that these negotiations are intended as political cover for a likely strike against Iran. G-d help us if it does happen.
Dreggas
You know, I think we’ve forgotten the value of Angry Mobs in our politics. You know, the pitchfork bearing kind.
liberal
DFD wrote,
Yes, but it’s not clear why a strong Iran is necessarily all that destabilizing.
I understand that the Saudis are worried about Iran fomenting unrest amongst Saudi Shi’ites, etc etc, but I think the claim that there’s any better policy than just staying out of the region is extremely weak.
As for the likelihood of Bush (or Israel, which would have to be with Bush’s blessing) striking Iran before January, count me among those who think it unlikely. My own personal estimate is 30% (which isn’t really unlikely, but ain’t 50% either). The “benefit”, of course, is that the Cheney-ite faction would love to do it. Many but not all Israeli factions want it. And we’d presume that for whatever idiotic reasons (which make me ashamed to be human), many stupid American voters might be tipped towards McCain, because of the bizarre impression he’s strong on “defense.”
But countering all that is the prospect of $12/gal at the pump.
Steve S.
“I should probably add that from the way I look at things, sending Burns along to these talks is a good thing. Talking to Iran does not mean giving in to them.”
Give in to them on what?
Brachiator
In the neo-con Bible, the US is, should be, and always shall be, the lone superpower in the world, and the Republican Party the sole legitimate regent of US interests.
Consequently, only the US can decide which nation is allowed to wield the big stick, i.e., nuclear weapons. Any nation which defies the will of the neo con priesthood must be confronted.
For Bush, so it is written, and so it shall be done. This means that he is incapable of formulating any non-belligerent foreign policy stance towards Iran, and also incapable of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons for any reason.
Less facetiously, I also think that neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel would be particularly pleased to see Iran develop nuclear weapons. The US rattles its saber because the Saudis are toothless and the Israelis would rather not get involved at this point.
I am also not sure how significant a threat Iran could be even if it had nuclear weapons since it does not really possess a credible Army and its missile capabilities are very suspect. Iran could be all WMD’d up, but no place to go “boom.”
DFD
I would add that any strike will either have to include or be followed by strikes that will destroy Iran’s ability to retaliate in the Strait of Hormuz. A strike against Iran will be much larger in scope than the Israeli strike against the Osiraq reactor.
GambitRF
Quick question:
How the hell is sitting there merely “listening” to Iran’s side without interjecting anything whatsoever less representative of “appeasement” than actively and aggressively negotiating?
The fact that they get away with this crap is both hilarious and deeply depressing.
Face
I refuse to buy into the whole martial law thing, but I’m speechless to explain how such an attack–and the resultant $10/gall gas price– could possibly help the GOP.
If all they do is politics-oriented (something I completely believe), then this would be a complete disaster, I would think. Which would preclude them from making such a move.
Or would dumbshit Americans just run blindly into a voting booth for Big Papa McCain and his Jowels of Protection and Asskickage? Yikes. The more I think about it, the more that seems about right.
Davis X. Machina
Attack Iran while Obama’s in Israel, and every reporter following him will ask him if he supports the President’s actions.
If he says ‘yes’, he’s doomed. Then there really is no difference between the parties.
If he says ‘no’, he’s doomed. Then he’s breaking the rule that politics ends at the water’s edge.
It is, after all, McCain’s only realistic hope for the White House, and McCain in the White House is their only realistic hope of avoiding international criminal procedings.
jrg
I’ve been negotiating with one of my co-workers on the proper design of a piece of software. We disagree on some fundamental points, so I’m afraid I need to stab him in the throat.
WTF is wrong with Bush? That man is an idiot. There have been and always will be radicals. We don’t need to convince them that we are right about everything, we need to develop a diplomatic relationship, so that war is not the first and only option.
Bush’s all-or-nothing, with-us-or-against us attitude is exactly like the Kaiser’s was at the start of WWI. His arrogance and stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Soylent Green
It’s all in the timing. The attack will come soon before the election to sway voters toward McCain. After the election is when the fuel crisis will hit.
Big E
re: Face::
I don’t think it’s even about the GOP or Dems anymore, it’s about specific people who are in a position to influence and benefit from whatever happens….sort of what Ms. Klein relates in her ‘Shock Doctrine’ book. There are folks who will make out very well and be insulated from the cost and blame.
Just look at who has made out big from Iraq, Katrina…..all the scandals … has anyone of note really been called to account? Billions in cash are missing…. The Dems have hearings but who really cares and what will really be done?…….. nothing!
The recent FISA bill as far as I understand gives retroactive immunity to all those associated with what has universally said to be illegal, save for Bush’s claims with signing statements. You can just about get away with anything now in the government regardless of which side your on.
It’s all done in daylight, with the cameras on….
cleek
if Bush attacks Iran, i will not get in the way of anyone who wants to overthrow the US government.
just sayin…
Napoleon
I think if an attack on Iran comes before the election that it is going to kill the Republicans at the polls as in they loose an additional 10 to 15 House seats and 3 or 4 Senate seats on top of the loses they would otherwise take.
Personally the second I head they had a deal with North Korea I figured an attack on Iran was preordained, and that the North Korea deal was a sop to those in the administration that favored negotiation.
By the way the idea up thread that the attack will come when Obama is in Isreal is chilling. I could see them doing that.
The Moar You Know
The rise in gas prices would happen the next day. This is why I suspect any attack will happen after the election; Bush would like his party to keep the presidency so he’ll stay out of jail, but surely doesn’t give a shit about what the next guy, regardless of party, has to deal with. His attitude since day one has been that his is the last presidency of America.
If it’s a Dem that has to mop up all the spilled beer, blood, and vomit, of course, so much the better.
Dan
Sending William Burns is part of the Kabuki so that they can say that they tried diplomacy, but it didn’t work, so it is time to bomb.
Boom, Like That.
Dreggas
I just don’t think the U.S. attacking Iran is going to help the GOP this year. Something would have to happen on the level of 9-11 to get enough people to fall for it again.
Zifnab
I mean, honestly, I agree. The Republicans are on thin ice. They really can’t do much of anything without losing popular support on one end or the other. The best thing for the GOP to do right now is to sit down, shut up, and give Democrats some run to embarrass themselves for a change. Attacking Iran would be a death blow for Independent support of the Republican Party. Bush really would have to launch a coup to maintain control, and I just don’t think he has the support within any branch of government to pull that off.
4tehlulz
Obama is scheduled to visit Israel on 22 or 23 July for 2 to 3 days. New moon is 8/1. Could happen, but I think they’ll do it during Obama’s keynote at the DNC.
Imagine Obama talking about Iraq and then the president interrupts to announce that we have taken action against Iranian supporters of terrorism against our forces in Iraq.
Mark Halperin will declare his love for McCain and W right there and then.
Martin
Because we need people buying oil with dollars and not Euros or anything else. OPEC generally deals in dollars and we will spread our legs as wide as they ask to ensure it stays that way. Iraq wasn’t interested in that game, so we flipped them and now they buy in dollars again – and now look at what our government is most concerned about preserving in Iraq. At the end of last year, Iran switched entirely out of dollars. Anyone note how well the dollar has been performing for the last year? Anyone know who else in OPEC dropped the dollar? Venezuela.
So Iran and Saudi Arabia are at odds with what people use to buy oil. That’s a new market to manipulate and that doesn’t favor Saudi Arabia (or us) who don’t want to see the status quo upset. A world running on dollars alone was a lot more predictable and we want that back, even if it means using B-2s to do it.
If the dollar continues to fall because the Chinese need Euros and not dollars to buy oil, we’ll be facing $10 gas (and $10 cheeseburgers, $10 candy bars, and $10 cans of soda because we don’t make jack shit in this country any more) simply due to currency devaluation. Some people are gambling that a war will do no more economic harm than would be done if we turned into Brazil. Perhaps, but there are surely other ways of addressing the problem.
On the Iran side, they know what they are doing and they know it’s pissing us off. Their safest harbor is behind a curtain of missiles aimed at Israel. NK taught the world that by putting a massive conventional missile threat on SK that keeps us from even considering an attack. If they can show that they are a substantial enough threat that Israel asks us to back off (Israel is considerably more bull-headed than SK, however) then they win. And they can win without nukes, though nukes might be what it takes to get Israel to back down.
This isn’t about tribalism – it’s about economics.
Punchy
Dates?
It would be an incredibly irresponsible move, IMO. To start a war in which a major Presidential candy could be in the middle of the fighting (read: retaliation) would seem almost too callous and irresponsible for these clowns.
Rudi
Will Burns participate in talks, like Chris Hill, or is he the evil spawn of the Walrus John Bolton?
4tehlulz
There is such a thing?
Napoleon
No.
This has been another episode of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
Punchy
You underestimate the illogical responses that scared people undertake. Add in a completely bought-and-sold war media (hungry for ratings), and together with the GOP they’ll paint this as Armeggedon. Surely Iran will fight back, and US interests will suffer. People will freak, and…WHOLA!…McCain in a landslide.
liberal
Punchy wrote,
I agree. I don’t see anything in history that would indicate otherwise; good old “rally round the flag effect” and it’s translation into support for the Rethuglicans should hold for at least a few months.
Though the pain at the pump might actually overwhelm even that reptilian response.
Steve S.
“I think if an attack on Iran comes before the election that it is going to kill the Republicans at the polls as in they loose an additional 10 to 15 House seats and 3 or 4 Senate seats on top of the loses they would otherwise take.”
Keep in mind that there wouldn’t simply be an attack, there would be some sort of provocation ginned up, which the large media outlets will parrot in 100% goosestep. Remember how close they came to firing shots a few months ago when a crackpot with a ham radio started threatening U.S. ships in Borat voice?
liberal
Big E wrote,
Well, it’s certainly true that you’d think American oil companies would benefit (in the short term) from a further run-up in oil prices.
Brachiator
Bush and his brand of conservatives need enemies for personal validation. In the 50s and 60s they got their jollies knowing that there was a powerful Communist menace that they had to face. They are like that maladjusted, but strong, kid at school who went around declaring, “You know. I can beat you up.”
The problem is that Bush’s arrogance is evenly matched by a Middle Eastern world view that refuses to back down before a hated enemy. Saddam Hussein would might still be happily indulging in tyranny had he been able to say, “Come on in and look for all the WMDs you want.” He had to convince himself and his people that he could stand up to Bush even though this was an insane fantasy. Similarly, some Iranians might prefer destruction to capitulation.
Either way, it’s bad news for everybody else.
Ironically, Wilhelm II was Queen Victoria’s first grandchild. The British thought that they understood Willie, and Willie was sure that he had the British figured out.
And thereby hangs a tale.
Eric
Could that mission be designed for failure, to show-up Obama and in that way shore up the images of Bush and McSame?
Big E
If peace suddenly breaks out, without the various major and minor industries connected with ‘defense’ and war, how much worse would the American economy be? ‘Swords into plowshares’? I don’t think so..
All the PNAC folks said that the cost & benefits of the Iraq war would justify the effort [they were so obviously and tragically flawed in their assesments] including financial and human loss.
This is no longer about charting a positive course for America and trying to make things better for the greatest amount of people.
Even the Justice Dept. is compromised and infected.
Iran is just another piece of the puzzle for ‘those types’ of folks. There is an arrogance, almost a racial and nationalistic hatred for non-americans and non-‘conservatives’, that causes the PNAC modern Republican party to hold power at all costs with little thought of the consequences.
Brachiator Says:
You are correct Sir! It is the demonstrated essence of the dispassionate modern Republicans to hate and fear that which does not reflect their own image.
TenguPhule
In Iran’s case there’s a lot they could do about it. Here’s to ‘targeting of legitimate political targets’ Iranian style.
Davis X. Machina
Saddam Hussein would might still be happily indulging in tyranny had he been able to say, “Come on in and look for all the WMDs you want.”
I believe this is in fact what he did….until Bush had the inspectors pulled to avoid them being hurt by the bombing.
DFD
Fascists
TenguPhule
I find it depressing that people keep believing Iran is developing nuclear weapons in the face of no evidence to that effect. The only people saying otherwise are the same exact people who fed the public the WMD bullshit of Iraq.
Lies really run around the world before the truth gets its boots on.
harlana pepper
‘Listening’ sounds very passive, indeed. No ‘talking to’ the Iranians to threaten them with potential annhilation otherwise?
Just listening. Huh.
Mr. Furious
Didn’t Israel just negotiate the release of prisoners to get back the thirty year old remains of a dead Israeli pilot?
Raucous applause here, but I imagine something of an uncomfortable silence in the chamber…
John Spragge
Keep in mind that nobody can predict what an attack on Iran would do. For example, if the supply of oil to China gets shut off, then the flow of
cheap garbagegoods that Wal-Mart sells will dry up. Faced with the end of the world as we know it, the American public may not feel fine. A block in the world’s oil artery may result in pain at a lot of places beside the gas pump.Big E
re: John Spragge
well….’they’ got Iraq wrong, and haven’t figured out Afghanistan after 7 years….. If someone starts shooting with Iran ‘they’ will have to launch the most massive pre-emptive conventional attack the world has ever seen to insure the oil flow from the Gulf…. or……’they’ will take the ‘easy route’ and use tactical nukes, either way the world would never be even close to being the same.