Excellent news. The sooner that tumor is excised the better. I think that these tactics might appeal to the more doveish element who would oppose an all-out invasion of Iran. B2-bombers and bunker-busters suggest to me that the US is planning to limit its response to Iran to Natanz.

funny thing about tumors… when they are not treated correctly, they have a tendency to go wild and start growing exponentially compared to the growth rate before intervention was attempted. When not treated correctly the cancer will metastasize (spread to other parts of the organism) and become even more aggressive. A limited strike on Iran will likely have the opposite of the intended effect. In light of how the administration has bungled every other endeavor they have attempted is this something we wish to allow them to carry out? Will the Russians and the Chinese remain quiet if some of their personnel are killed in the strike? what would happen in china decides to dump it’s US bonds and only do business in Euros? Was the diplomatic good will we enjoyed with the russians also squandered in much the same way the goodwill of the iranians was squandered after sept11? Was a pocketfull of political capital enough to send the prez in a spending spree that left him bankrupt? tune in next week for RealityBytes.

Jeez, I can’t believe it. I got axed. I’ll try to parse it up and see if I can sneak it through, but it’s BS TIM!! BS!!

Why can I say THAT, but not this:

We ARE witnessing an epoch changing drama unfold. As Dallas inferred, it’s probably too late. The Dems in Congress COULD have done something and may still be able to, but there hasn’t been any demonstration of Huevos, Waxman notwithstanding, coming from THAT hallowed institute.

Well, that part ‘flew,’ what about THIS

We are witnessing what happens when a society doesn’t involve itself in its own governing. And we’re all guilty. Are you following Dallas’ lead and protesting? I’m not; I don’t have the funds and/or health/strength for it. Out of a country of 300mil, you can expect about ½ of 1 percent protesting. If that. I’m not being accusatory, just recognizing the evolution of this country. If that IS the case, then you have to extrapolate that 90% of the country is FOR bombing Iran. Too scary to think about.

Here’s another piece I can’t believe MCP doesn’t like …

Ole,

Shame on you. Bushney is guilty of subterfuge at the least. Too afraid to confront the people, he wants to Machiaveliate (sic) his way into what he wants and Congress doesn’t want him to do. It meets, of course, your realpolitik, but doesn’t jive so well with the prinicples upon which this country was founded.

I’m down to two paragraphs, I’m parsing them up now ..

How many people are actually affected, directly, by this? And how many actually give a hoot about anything other than their personal well being? Even the ‘have nots’ ‘have more’ than most of the inhabitants of this planet. They’re more concerned with keeping what they ‘have not’ than what these actions portend.

I’m down to sentences.

Of course, when all hell breaks loose, they’ll go, “What th..,” and that will be that.

Look at how many bought into WMD and Iraq being behind 9/11.

Of course, when all hell breaks loose, they’ll go, “What th..,” and that will be that.

I apologize to all who have to wade through this crap. But I REALLY want to find out what MCP doesn’t like:

The Idiots In Charge will blame Russia and/or China for any escalation of the problem

Okay, we’re there. It doesn’t ‘like’ “,,,and the majority of the people of this x. It’s what they WANT to believe,,,”

Wow, I’m down to four words.
first word is ‘country’,
second word is ‘will,’

fourth word is ‘into’
and the last word is ‘it.

It doesn’t like the word, from me anyway, b-u-y.

What gives with that?

DD, this is a well known problem that the comments are filtered by a list of ‘bad’ words, as if there really were such a thing. Anyway, I’ve come to the conclusion that it isn’t intentional censorship of meaning so much as just a way for RS to cover their ‘rears’ from whiny pc ‘unintelligent people’. Their filter dictionary is probably just a bit too aggressive and catches words that aren’t actually considered offensive even by the most ‘ignorant’ person.

DD-

This is in no way subterfuge. Call it what you will, but there is nothing sneaky about it. The supplemental funding request will have to be voted on in Congress and therefore will be and is a matter of public record. Furthermore, if you look at how much coverage this particular line item – which represents less than 0.1% of the funds being requested – is getting on the web, it’s fairly obvious that that no attempt was made to hide it from the public. I also might add that, if it is approved by Congress, it will have been approved by a great many candidates who were elected on a platform of ending the war, so who is really sneaky.

Bloody:
Let’s be fundamental here. What has Iran done that deserves this kind of treatment from the United States? Send a few militants into Iraq to keep the chaos going? Wouldn’t you?
They’re surrounded by nukes and we won’t let them have them. Believe me, I’m not down with how they run their country, but that’s why I don’t live there. What business is it of ours, and better yet, what’s the threat to us?
I’ll repeat this until people actually realize it: The Shrub administration changed the rules of engagement because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to further their own enrichment.
American Enterprise Institute: “We must bomb Iran now because we don’t know how far away from having a nuclear weapon they actually are.” Are you freaking kidding me? THEY’RE SURROUNDED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WHY DO WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THEM GETTING ONE? IF THEY USE IT, THEY’RE DONE. THEY KNOW IT. SO, WE’RE JUST GOING TO BOMB A COUNTRY BECAUSE OF WORDS? IF THAT’S THE CASE, THEN SOMEONE SHOULD’VE BOMBED THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN SHRUB CALLED LIBERALISM A DISEASE. OR SAID A VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS IS A VOTE FOR TERRORISTS.
We all need to wake up and smell the crap. This administration has failed at everything they’ve tried. And Shrub has been a failure his whole life. What makes anybody believe him, let alone agree with him?
If you believe Iran is a threat, you’ll believe anything. Personally, this little Iran escapade is going to scare the crap out of me based on China’s reaction. Thanks a lot, again, Shrub. Biggest idiot president EVER.

Coach – “What has Iran done that deserves this kind of treatment from the United States? Send a few militants into Iraq to keep the chaos going?”
To answer your question, they stormed our embassy and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days. They offer financial assistance and weapons and training to Hezbollah which is a terrorist organization. They are providing weapons to the militants that are killing our soldiers in Iraq. And of course their fearless leader wants Israel (our ally mind you) “wiped off the map.” Maybe now you’ll understand why people are a little nervous about Iran having a nuclear weapon.
Now this does NOT mean we start bombing the hell out of them? Given everything that is going on in the region right now, that would be a huge mistake. Not to mention our good buddy Putin has once again shown us his true colors, by buddying up with Tehran. But I see nothing wrong with putting sanctions on Iran’s banks and the Revolutionary Guard if that will help deter them from their nuclear program.

Middle Man: “they stormed our embassy and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.”

Yes, they did, with assistance and encouragement from the Reagan party.

“They offer financial assistance and weapons and training to Hezbollah which is a terrorist organization.”

Yes, they do. But the united states, particularly the Bush family, has been providing weapons to sunni militias for 30 years.

“They are providing weapons to the militants that are killing our soldiers in Iraq”

Yes, they are, and we would do the same thing if Mexico and Canada had Iranian-provided nukes and we didn’t.

None of those reasons are yet strong enough for me to support an Iranian invasion AT ANY TIME.

And, to address another point you tried to make: Iran is also an ally. They helped us as recently as Afghanistan.

Come on people, give me the real reason everyone is so gangbusters for war with Iran. Somewhere in there is hidden paranoia and racism. HAS to be.

Bad Filter,

I understand. But the word By, as in purchase?

I tried using the ‘real’ by, but I got axed. This is, I’m sure you’ll agree, a little absurd and doesn’t speak well to the care and feeding their software is receiving.

Coach,

Be sure and mention those were STUDENTS who stormed the embassy and just why did they do that? They were a little bit PISSED that this country accepted their recently deposed Shaw for medical treatment. You and I might agree that was humane, but the students in Teheran did not. Their choice.

The ‘government’ only because involved after they saw what a wonderful PR coup it was.

Ole,

You’re accusing the candidates of being sneaky BEFORE the fact. That’s pretty cheeky of you. If they vote for it as is, I’ll join you in condemning them.

As for proof that Bushney was NOT ‘hiding’ the item because bells and whistles went off all over the place, that’s like saying the shoplifter who got caught MEANT to pay for it but forgot. Pulease.

Besides, we know it takes a brain to be sneaky. That leaves out Bushney. Bushney is the type who’d just take the bomb and use it, screw funding it. It’s there, throw it at ‘em.

Interesting, I just got ‘kicked back’ for user traffic I guess, but my ‘text’ was still there. Are things improving?

DD, we most definitely agree on the absurdity of the filter. I’m not quite a web dev, but the filter is usually hand built or some sort of default list readily available.

Completely off topic, but my position has always been that words are representative of meaning, and meaning alone is what matters. We don’t get mad when someone uses a foreign word that happens to mean something bad in our own language, why? Because we know they aren’t intending to be insulting. Its all about context and meaning. Even the ‘worst’ words possible don’t matter the slightest unless used in the right context. That makes filtering by words pointless and just backwards.

But thats just me. I take an absolutist stance on censorship. If I were in charge of the filtering, I’d make it client side by allowing a user to turn on or off comment filtering on their end. Good luck getting RS to do that though.

Absurd,

Agreed, as in the old ’sticks and stones,’ sing song.

I find it remarkable that a rag such as RS would even consider filtering words. I confess, I’ve never been a big subscriber to the mag, but I always thought that ultra-liberal was their mantra. Censorship was something used, or attempted to be used, against them. How in good name can they do the same to their ‘readers?’ I like to chalk it up to some overzealous techie.

If they’re going to be so ‘open’ as to not even require us to register, etc., how can they then fret about words? Rhetorical question. Hopefully, if we keep talking it up, someone will get the message and clean up their act.

At least provide a list of the words so we can ‘adjust.’

PS, it’s okay to go off-topic. Just don’t use certain words. ??

Truth is, how do you filter ‘topic?’

It’s pretty obvious DD,

Rolling Stone doesn’t want to lost any sales by bad publicity of the Michele Malkin kind. If there ever was a filter that could understand “topic” or the greater concepts metaphorically implied by words, it would be on the Sci Fi channel. I think it’s probably amazing how little you can pay someone just to monitor the comments section on a site.

DD-

I think you got me, I was a bit presumptuous, suggesting that the Dems. would approve the supplemental. The way I put it made it sound like a done deal; and I admit, I didn’t even stop to consider the fact that they wouldn’t approve it. Still, I have to say that after watching the Democratic candidates debate where Obam-inton-ards was talking about 2013, I am unable to imagine a scenario that does not include the US maintaining a major presence in the region for many years to come. I see where you are coming from and I acknowledge that I was definitely speaking from extreme personal bias (though I believe the bias to be well-founded). Concerning your analogy of the shoplifter, I think it’s a bit off the mark. Wouldn’t you at least concede that Bushney is savvy enough to realize that the modern news media is capable of filtering proposed legislation for nuggets like this? Certainly the retrofitting of B-2s is associated with the administration’s policy on Iran, but I suggest that this item might just as easily be interpretted as a show of force, if not simply a straightforward pursuit of the means to wage war on Iran.

Coach -

“Yes, they did, with assistance and encouragement from the Reagan party.”

Please elaborate. If this is more than some bs-conspiracy theory of yours, I would definitely like to hear about it.

Ole,

I sincerely appreciate your reconsideration of your statements. It is a RARE phenomenon hereabouts indeed. And I agree with on your portray of Bushney, but you KNOW I have to paint them in the worst possible light. Consider my slant such as that of an editorial cartoonist, not that I imagine myself so endowed. I portray Bushney as I perceive them. I recognize and concede bias.

Let’s not forget they’re the greatest power on earth. They receive no quarter, nor do they need any, from me. My words are but fly droppings in the vast ocean.

people tend to forget why the Iranian revolution happened in the first place.
As in many other places in the world at the time, the Iranians democratically elected a party whose ideology did not meet with the approval of the American govt.
The CIA, much as they did in Chile and other countries at the time, disrupted commerce by paying off workers to strike and cause shortages, then they incited a revolution that ended in the istallation of the Sha into power over the objections of the Iranian people.
As these illegitimate governments must do in order to maintain control against the will of the people, the Sha became an oppressive totalitarian dictator. The Iranian people recognized the CIAs hand in the rise to power of the Sha and turned on the US when they took control of the country.

The reagan administration made arms deals with the Iranians during the run up to the election that would keep the hostages captive until reagan was confirmed. Sure enough, the hostages were released within minutes of Reagan taking the oath of office. Some months later the Iranians received much needed weaponry and spare parts that kept them alive in the war they were having with the Iraqis. The covert operations were handled by Oliver North, who also used profits from cocaine smuggling into East LA to purchase weapons to support the terrorist enterprise called the nicaraguan contras, their aim was to overthrow the democratically elected government, in contravention of laws passed by congress.
During the hearings, Reagan was made famous for his Gonzalesque retort “senator, I cannot recollect!”. Which makes one wonder how he was able to preside for his last couple of years with alzheimers as bad as he had.

The US has supported terrorism all over south america, terrorism perpetrated by separatists wanting to overthrow marxists or otherwise aligned democratically elected governments as well as helping military juntas oppress and control the people by totalitarian, terroristic means.

If you think it can’t happen here perhaps you should realize that your government has plenty of experience in being anti-democratic and totalitarian, they have perfected the techniques in other countries. Now they seem poised to use those techniques against their own population, first step was to dilute the protections bestowed by our creator and upheld by the constitution.

Jed, you beat me to it. I was going to answer Bloodys question about the Reagan party being involved in the hostate ‘dealings’. But, you nailed it. Thanks for that.

Hope that was enough of an answer Bloody Olay.

Bloody: “If this is more than some bs-conspiracy theory of yours”

That’s exactly the kind of crap I don’t understand. If it’s TRUE, how is it a conspiracy theory? Isn’t it just a FACT at that point? It’s those kind of comments that reveal your true bias. I apologize if I’m wrong, but you routinely show a bias AGAINST liberals. Just an observation………

Blood: Reagan served two terms. And, I think they’re talking about the 2nd one, involving the exploitation of the hostages in Iran and using it to get confirmation. But, again, I’m just speculatinig at this point. I’d have to look it up, but it’s been somewhat common knowledge to me that it happened.

I guess we all need to relook at history, huh?

and most of the “terror sponsoring” we did was throught the old doctrine of containment, because the Soviets were doing the same thing in Yemen, Angola, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, etc

it was the mood of the times–anyone who was remotely anti-Soviet, regardless of how brutal they were, was accepted as an ally. Everyone thought if the Soviets werent stopped, they’d gobble up the globe…so regardless of whether they were nice people, they were supported…international relations has always worked this way anyway

so terrible, yes. in the context of the times, understandable

Bender –

Go back and actually read both posts. Maybe try putting your finger on each word as you read along. Jed can only be referring to the release of the 52 hostages that occurred on the same day as Reagan’s first inaug. In Jed’s words “Sure enough, the hostages were released within minutes of Reagan taking the oath of office.” I will admit I am speculating, but I think this can only be interpretted to be a reference to the first inauguration. If the historical facts are a bit fuzzy, try looking them up. I believe that he is making the specious claim, as a number of conspiracy-theorists have in the past, that the arms sales that were made famous in the Iran-Contra hearings were done as a sort of exchange for releasing the embassy hostages. Either that or Jed is referring to weapons sales that occurred prior to 1985; in that case, I think he needs to be a bit more specific on the details of these alleged sales, because he seems to be the singular possessor of such knowledge.

Coach – What FACTUAL evidence do you have that Reagan assisted and encouraged the Iranian hostage takers? Givent that a House investigation proved what you say to be unfounded, I find it hard to believe that you have conclusive info that they didn’t.
As for the US offering weapons to Sunni militias over the last 30 years, yes they did. As Merk points out, that was done to battle what was seen as a greater evil.
And because you think we would fund and support militants in Canada or Mexico if the situation was reversed, is not a reason to let Iran develop a nuclear weapon.
They are NOT our ally, look at the pictures coming from their drill teams.
As for this being an issue of race, give me a f@%king break? When all else fails play the race card right?

I’d like to weigh in.

First, let’s assert that Reagan knew NOTHING about what was going on. We can rely on that ‘cause Reagan knew NOTHING about anything, ‘going on.’ His ‘management style’ was to defer everything to someone else. Everyone was running around on his election team with ‘carte blanc’ powers to negotiate. One among them contacted an Iranian, whose name I forget but I WILL dig up if pressed. This ‘guy’ would be a major, on-going player in the arms negotiations that Jed referenced and Ole time-lined. Surprise, he has an Iranian name.

I don’t recall the exact person who was involved with the ‘talks’ but I want to say it’s the small, bald former air force general who got caught up in the Iran/Contra BS. Anyway, there WERE talks between ‘representatives’ of Reagan and ‘representatives’ of Iran. You can argue who, what, where, when why and how important, but it WAS established by no less a personage than (hope I’m right here) Bob Woodward. Don’t know if citing him adds or detracts, but the man DOES have insider info. I think it’s in his book on the CIA. I’ve read it elsewhere as well, but who remembers authors.

I don’t remember specifics but it’s not REALLY that important. If it was only winks and nods, the ultimate outcome is somewhat damning. And given the subsequent developments, I have no problem believing that assurances were given. The facts speak for themselves.

DD-

Point of order, if I may…

I don’t deny that the Reagan administration had contacts in Iran and was pursuing some sort of terms with them during the first campaign. Anything less would be irresponsible for any party faced with a similar scenario. Stipulating all this in no way undermines anything that I’ve said doubting the connection between the sale of arms in 85 being connected with the release of hostages in 81. I began this line of inquiry when I expressed incredulity about Coach’s statement: ‘Middle Man: “they stormed our embassy and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.” Yes, they did, with assistance and encouragement from the Reagan party.’ Suggesting that Reagan and his people orchestrated the hostage crisis for political gain is a far cry from what you are talking about. Eventually Jed weighed in and tried making the connection between the release of the 52 in 81 and the arms sales that came to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair – or as far as I can tell, that’s what he’s saying.

Isn’t it funny that they would focus on an irrelevant part of the comment and make a big fuzz over it to distract our attention from the real meat and potatoes of the posting.
We caused the hatred the Iranian leadership has for us due to our meddling in other countries internal affairs in contravention of the wishes of the founding fathers and the constitution.
We trampled on the desires of the Iranian people and their choice of elected government because we didn’t like the perceived ideology because it was based on collective cooperation instead of an elite businessman being the main beneficiary of an economic endeavour, we then installed a totalitarian despot who ruled with an iron hand and we expect them to shut the f*ck up and quietly eat their porridge? Communism was rejected outright in the US by the Capitalist who saw it as a threat to their economic stranglehold on the nation. Even though it is merely a political ideology and democracy demands that peoples ideas should not be vilified, only concrete actions with clear intent, they were still persecuted, prevented from pursuing happiness by being blacklisted and in some cases even jailed, merely for thinking different in a country where thought is suppossed to be protected.
Not only have we interfered with the politics and religions of the middle east, but also in almost all of latin america and more recently africa. Our policies in those countries helped a few elites take control of the economies of those countries and use them for their own personal agrandizement to the detriment of their employees who get paid so little they can’t afford the products they make. This will definately have the effect of creating animosity among those people that eventually has the potential of being unleashed in our own cities… the just rewards for callous, selfish, onesided diplomacy and economic policy. Do you really think those people are so backward and uneducated as to not realize where the true disruptions are sourced from?

Jed,

The only backward ones are those you’re addressing your post to.

Don’t forget, even after all the crap we’ve given Iran over the years, they STILL help us. For sure that ‘help’ was in their interests as well, but they could have said, with justification and satisfaction, “Blow it out your ass!!”

TREASON AGAINST GOD AND COUNTRY

When did Giuliani’s Christian God give him the right to support Human sacrifice, women killing their own children?

When did his American Constitution give him the right to sacrifice the wealth and blood of the American People, on behalf of domestic and foreign lobbies?

If neither his Christian God, nor his American Constitution, are sacred to him; why would his promises to the American People be sacred to him?