Note this analysis from this Blair-friendly paper;

Aside from the stupidity, the article was clear that the 'senior official' was very insulting towards europe (France, Germany and jack straw personally). BushCo: assholes, every one of them.

that Bush is both stupid AND crazy. Really, genuinely crazy. And THAT should explain everything.

I was talking to an old rancher the other day. We had gone to get help with a repair on something.  His wife a very sweet lady, invited us to come in for a "pop".

When her husband joined us, we started very gently talking about Bush, very gently.  We have a rule that we bring that subject up at every possible occasion with everybody we meet.

The old man shook his head and said he would not vote for Bush under any circumstances. I asked why and his answer surprised me.

"He said  "Don't ever ride a pig-eyed horse or trust a pig-eyed man."  We laughed and asked him what he meant.

He calmly replied that both pigeyed horses and men are crazy and dangerous. A pig eyed horse will throw you or stomp you because their brains don't work right. Same with a pigeyed man.

"Just look at that man's eyes, so small and close together and you gotta know he's crazy. He'll blow us to Hell or Heaven.  I guess being pigeyed makes them dumb as a fence post, too. Their brains just ain't healthy."

Old folk's wisdom works for me.

The US has sent seven aircraft carrier task groups into the strait between Taiwan and China - and then sent Condi Rice to China to try to damp down the fire caused by this unprecedented show of force in asia.  Each carrier has about 80-90 aircraft - about 600 total.  (I'm surprised the task forces didn't collide with each other in the narrow strait since each of the seven task forces has about 10 ships).

More on this in todays post at The Left Coaster

and here:

Channel NewsAsia

For once, can't we just let the Iranians settle this themselves? At least they would be satisfied with someone they chose. But I think the real fear is that Iran may annex the Shiite areas of Iraq, dismembering that country. In any event, real Iraqi reconstruction is going to involve a great deal of help from Iran and the Iranians.

Let's announce we're going to interfere with another country's internals. It's the fastest way to unite the country (and the world) against us.

If that's what you want to do, please don't announce it in the European press.

It's interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, one that we already have of history of meddling with.  As already noted, the surest way to strengthen the hand of the mullahs is to start trying to overthrow them.  Not to mention that any move by us against them, whether pouring money into the country to fund dissident groups, or bombing their nuclear facilities, is bound to provoke a counterreaction by the Iranians that will doubtless be far more effective than what we do.  The possibilities for them to create problems in Iraq are far greater than our ability to effect change in Iran.  I would also guess the Iranians are pretty well armed, and if worse came to worse they would present quite a danger to American naval vessels in the Persian Gulf.

I'm guessing this official is John Bolton, or perhaps even Pearle or Wolfowitz.  It sounds nutty enough to be any of the three, Bolton seems to be particularly devoid of rationality.  Don't think for a moment that BushCo. isn't planning to do this if they're returned to power.  In fact, even if Kerry wins in November, they have over two months to provoke something with the Iranians that will present the incoming administration with a crisis designed to destroy it at its inception.
 

that you are swallowing this spin.

There has been an ongoing struggle for democracy going on in Iran for many years. The elected government has been struggling w/ the religious conservatives to move the country toward more freedom. Our attack on Iraq has actually set their movement back.

This sabre rattling undermines the reformist movement in Iran.

Consider where the reports of these leaks are appearing first: Newsweek, Time, NY Daily News and the NY Post. BushCO cheerleaders ALL.

Don't believe the hype.

Times have changed,  The days when America could just go in and foment revolution are long gone, what with mass communication such as Al-Jazeera and the internet, to say nothing of the economic power of Europe, China and India, which weren't factors in the '50s and '60s, and, of course, assymetric warfare, aka terrorism. It may be a unipolar world militarily, but not culturally or economically.  This is such a destabilizing thing to do, fraught with unintended consequences.

I sometimes think these people never look at maps.  Iraq is the size of California.  Iran is three times thatsize, the size of the whole American West (without Texas).  And the terrain! And this place borders the former Soviet republics!   What are these guys thinking?  And if we are to believe the links between Chalabi and the Iranian mullahs, one could  suppose that this is what the mullahs think could unite their country behind them and alleviate all that youth unrest.  

Once again, we will underestimate nationalism and overestimate how much people in other countries love us.  Just because a kid likes the internet, rock and roll and blue jeans doesn't mean he wants us to come in and mess around with his country.  Especially not after Iraq and Abu Ghraib.  If I trusted us to undermine the mullahs with the kind of moral force that the Eastern Europeans used, I might support this, but I have no confidence wehatsoever that a Bush regime would not create another fubar situation in a far more dangerous place.

Iran has both Iraq and Afghanistan as bordering states.  

Do we need to have Iran fomenting more trouble in those two places now, especially considering that Irans population is substantially bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan's combined?

Add in Iran's capability for turning up the heat (thru Hezbollah) in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, and maybe they can hurt us far more than we can hurt them in the short run.  It not as though we have extra military forces to back up any initiatives we may take.  

This is just dumb at this time.

Yes, Iran IS dangerous.

No one who has been paying attention really doubts that they're developing, at the very least, a capacity to make nukes if not nukes themselves. They do support terrorists -- or, if you would like to call them something else, political and guerilla forces opposed to our interests. However, do you really expect the Bush administration will do this in a competent fashion? Heck, no! The people in the White House, in addition to being possibly insane are definitely incompetent. There's no way they could pull this off.

Also, some here mention Iran's movement toward democracy and how we've hurt it through saber-rattling. I believe this is true to a limited extent. I think the average Iranian doesn't hate the U.S. and does want democratic rule. But, I don't believe all the reports that Iranians despise their current theocracy all that much. If they did, they'd be out on the streets, just like they were for the Shah. But, they're not there. Sure, some students have gotten their heads kicked in, newspapers shut down, all the usual oppression and human rights abuses. But, where is the real, actual mass movement against the mullahs? I don't think it exists. And I don't think we can create it, either, especially with this group of asses in the White House.

That leaves the nukes. We've got satellites and time. When we see the plant getting ready for production -- ready to take in fuel rods -- then we can hit them. We may reach a point where we have no other alternative. I think the idea of the mullahs with nukes is totally unacceptable. I'm aghast that the Russians have been helping, but what can you do, y'know? In the meantime, time IS on our side. The IAEA and the UN have NOT been asleep at the wheel on this. Diplomatic alternatives are available, and, at least up until now, we've been using them, not to great effect. But it doesn't hurt to keep trying. Also, we have to be prepared that if we do hit their nuke sites then we very well may lose Iraq, completely and totally, along with a good number of U.S. forces (think tens of thousands dead and/or captured). It's an acceptable trade off, I think, to keep the nukes out of the mullahs' hands, but it is or ought to be a last-ditch, last-chance option.

In the meantime, talking about it does nothing for us. It makes us, the U.S., look like war criminals and madmen, and it reduces our diplomatic options with Iran and the world. I guess I've come to expect this incompetence for the Bush administration.

not a Texas venue. I have no idea who the official was, but Bronwen Maddox, the foreign affairs editor, has no great love for the Bushies (she writes a daily column).

The tone of the article is incredulous throughout, from a normally sympathetic paper.

After the Abu Ghraib photos came out, I once heard Limbaugh say that what the commentators were saying about Arabs being shamed by nakedness did not apply to Iraqis, because they are not Arabs.  He had to correct himself after the break, saying he had confused Iraq with Iran.

means new conservative, referring to people that were Democrats and are the neocons. Reagan Dems.

This is a dangerous misnomer.

These are the same Right Wing Nazis that have been teaching hate and intolerance for years.

Follow the money and follow the hate. War needs hate.

War is wrong. It's not the kind of thing where OK, this guy is wrong and this guy is less wrong, nobody is right in war.

Geronimo once said, "I never do wrong without a cause." What he is really saying is he never does wrong. If this were true he would not need a cause.

The good book does not say thou shalt not kill unless you sold them poison gas in the Eighties.

I always find amazement that the Bush administration tries to tie the smallest shred of 9/11 to any country he wants to invade.

This overlooks the gargantuan pile of evidence impeaching Saudi Arabia, naturally.

"between eight and 10 of the 14 hijackers involved in gaining control of the four aircraft used on September 11 passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001"

They also passed through Germany, England, Canada, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York, among other places.

Also Prague, if you believe Cheney.

If I assume you think overthrowing the Teheran regime would have been a good idea?  I hope not.  First of all, a review of the last 55 years shows that this is a dreadful idea if only because it has repurcussions that end up doing us far more damage in the long run than the short term benefits (if any) are worth.  This country severely damaged its reputation in the Middle East when it overthrew the legally elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, and we ended up setting in motion the long chain of events that resulted in the triumph of the ayatollahs and mullahs.  The coup we fomented in Guatemala in 1954 similarly turned popular opinion against us in Latin America.  No matter how we might have changed our policies with regard to those regions (and its doubtful we made any real changes of substance), we weren't trusted, and for excellent reason.  The only thing that saved our reputation during the Cold War was that no matter how badly we behaved, the Soviets and Communist Chinese were always demonstrably worse than we were.  Now that we're the world's sole remaining superpower, we can no longer look not-so-bad by comparison with anyone else.

Even assuming that we are at all justified in destabilizing and overthrowing the governments of other countries (a point I am not willing to concede, except for argument's sake) the country we should be directing our efforts towards would seem to be Pakistan's wobbly military dictatorship, not Iran, which actually has the rudiments of a democratic form of government and can be depended upon to behave with at least of modicum of adherence to international law and the rules of diplomacy.  The Pakistanis, on the other hand, work hand in glove with al-Qaeda and have actively traded nuclear weapons technlogy in return for favors from other rogue states.

At any rate, I don't want this country going around the world destabilizing other governments.  We've done too much of this sort of thing already, and it has gotten us far more grief than it was worth.  Not to mention the misery it has caused for the unfortunate citizens of the countries we've interfered with.

...of the Cold War?

If they were to make serious moves towards a rampage around the world other countries incuding former allies will not stand still to watch it happen. They will be forced to build up their militaries just to have a counter to a U.S. that's spun out of control.

are NEXT month ....

All of these leaks are the propaganda versions of left jabs, keeping the electorate back on its heels, backing up, unable to strike back. One quick jab after another, puctuated w/ major leaks like body blows. Just waiting to bring in that overhand right when they try to steal the election.

Doesn't this also serve as a stick to beat Bush? Here's a report saying that the whole time it was IRAN, not Iraq, we should've been going after! This "leak" makes them look like idiots. The new meme: "We invaded the wrong damn country!"

I don't mean to ruin anyone's day, weekend, but let's hope these sick fucks aren't thinking of using some of these - Nuclear Bunker Busters, Mini-Nukes, and the US Nuclear Stockpile on Iran's underground Nuclear facilities.

The thought makes me wretch, but I can't help but beleive it's not beyond them.

We've got to get these wingnuts out of power and their fingers away from weapons like this.

Once again, oil seems to be a top issue.  Could it be that Bushco is just pissed off because all of these other nations are getting in on the Iranian oil bonanza?  We muct stop these non-American companies that have no connection to Halliburton!  </sarcasm>