Dems In Disarray (Ongoing...)

Jeff Goldstein reprises the anti-war comments of some leading Dems.

And the WaPo delivers a Pearl Harbor day message to the Dems in Disarray:

Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005;  Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Rahm Emmanuel is nervous:

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

"What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president's policies have led to," Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, "the how and when gets buried" and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.

This actually makes sense (so I am not worried that Dems will do it):

While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.

The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush's policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq.

Well, yes - Dem leaders evidently must do something to placate the vocal portion of their party, which is intent on re-fighting the intelligence wars of 2002.  And for the rest of us, some sensible plan to carry us forward from 2005 would be helpful - screaming "We should never have gone in, and I told you not to" is not exactly an exit strategy.

Meanwhile, let's file this under "Say What You Mean, And Stand Tall (Even If You Stand Alone)":

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today's meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.

Ahh!  The "Out Now" Dems are right, but if the party ran on their actual views, well, the American public might not be quite ready for their wisdom.  Unbelievable.

I would think the Dems could attempt in 2006 just what John Kerry attempted in 2002 - endorse the broad outline of the Bush plan (Iraqification and withdrawal), then change the subject to domestic issues.  But first they need to help their Chairman and their House Minority Leader recover from their Vietnam flashbacks (with Kerry, it is not a flashback - it's the ongoing feature film).

MORE:  Top Spin du Jour, or "Strength in Disunity"

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. "The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq," he said. "We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace."

Dems in Disarray - it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Comments

[Sue]

Gary,

He was called on his Duke Cunningham remark when he made it. I don't remember the thread and don't know if search is an option on here but he was called on his stupid Cunningham remark as soon as he made it.

[Gary Maxwell]

Almost makes me wish for the return of JayDee. Almost...

[Rick Ballard]

Bite your tongue. Hard.

[noah]

DougJ...since you are an admitted liar and impostor, how could you ever in good faith criticize anyone else? Of course, thats the joke on us I guess...the idea that you lefties are ever speaking or acting in good faith.

I admit there is a tendency to not jump on those on this side of the argument that go too far...and jump all over the loons from the other side such as Katrina on another thread...but in my opinion that is a good part of human nature.

[J. Caesar]

you guys obviously don't get the joke.

The reason it took you so long to realize who DougJ was is because he sounds so much like you. It's time to take a good long hard look in the mirror, guys.

LOL!

[Rick Ballard]

I extended his life on the board by mistaking him for another commenter - dougf - who frequents Simon's and the old Totten's board. I'm sorry for offering him the chance to lie his way through a few more days.

I do understand your glee. The left truly loves a skillful liar. If one cannot lie with dexterity there is no place for him on the left. So, you have justification in your glee but not in your advice to look in the mirror. Go back through the threads and check on the "you sure got that right" posts in support of his more egregious statements. You won't find many. Perhaps a little more silence than was justified but not many "attaboys" - partially because he is a worthy lefty. He's a skillful liar and can work his way into others trust and confidence. Lying lefties have accomplished that for many years - fully 20% of the population constitutes those who can be can be fooled at all times.

Congratulations - you've found someone qualified to be a leader on the left.

[maryrose]

Jcaeser,
Et Tu Brute?
When Ilook in the mirror I like what I see.
Duplicitou, Disengenious Doug, I have had many students like you. Perhaps maturity and an honest self-image will help you in the future.Alas your liberal friends will not be as forgiving as I.

[The Disenfranchised Voter]

Hahaha!

Bravo DougJ, Bravo!

And man, what a bunch of uptight bastards here...

DougJ deserves a medal for his performance--kind of like Tenet's medal.

[John S.]

Way to go DougJ!

I guess you can paint a few more skull n' crossbones on your blogosphere fighter jet.

[anon]

I warned you people about that jackass DougJ a week ago.

[Gary Maxwell]

Well you are right, I dont see the point. He accomplished nothing. Almost no one agreed with anything he said. His own triumphalism post elsewhere that I copied over here was that his inanities were met with silence not condemnation.

He was challenged almost immediately when he showed up spouting and strutting, but when challenged he lied some more and went on saying stupid stuff that only an uber lefty would think center right citizens would respect.

Big Yawn. Paint whatever you wish. Glorify whatever you wish too.

[anon]

Gary,

I'm not trying to "paint" or "glorify" anything. I'm glad DougJ's was outed. He's an obnoxious little turd. That why I posted about him in the first place.

[Gary Maxwell]

Sorry anon I was typing and editing while your post went up. It was meant for the lefty troll(s) building their little monument to the malarkey.

[Sam I Am]

I guess I would be furious too if I had just discovered that my reality was little more than DougJ's parody.

[Rick Ballard]

Anon-at-anon.com didn't inspire enough confidence for me to take you seriously. His pickup of my error in confusing him with dougf convinced me to let it lie for a bit.

I suppose the adoption of a hermeneutic of suspicion for every anonymous poster should be de rigeur but it's rather tiresome. Which may be the entire point.

It is a bit entertaining to see him championed - a true liar among liars.

[anon]

Rick,

Sorry about the email address, though it does keep the amount of spam email down to an acceptable level. :)

[The Disenfranchised Voter]

You people would have never even caught on if it wasn't for anon's posting.

What a party pooper anon is.

Also a [deleted]--won't even say who he/she is...

[Rick Ballard]

Aside from my error, very few on the right had any comments whatsoever concerning him. Just as the honest liberals who post here have anything good at all to say about the three or four lefty seminar posters.

Yes, he wasn't called out as a liar as early as he might have been but your argument still remains that he is a skillful liar - I certainly don't disagree with that. I just find it odd that it is found by some to be a trait worthy of admiration.

[The Disenfranchised Voter]

"I just find it odd that it is found by some to be a trait worthy of admiration."

You really should stop calling him a "liar"...

Cheney is a liar, DougJ is a court jester.

[Rick Ballard]

To the village idiot, I am sure that he is a court jester. To me, he is simply a liar. Just a matter of taste, I suppose.

[Cecil Turner]

You people would have never even caught on if it wasn't for anon's posting.

Sorry, not true. And that was actually funny, because we all assumed Rick's memory was correct and anon was the troll. (Weak excuse: it's a lot easier for spoofers when the Kos types are actively trolling under revolving pseudonyms.) Then he just got a little too creative.

His own triumphalism post elsewhere that I copied over here was that his inanities were met with silence not condemnation.

That's not quite right, even discounting the "moonbat" and arguments with other lefties, he got called on several in that one thread alone.

[on DougJ's "balance" and Cunningham]

Maybe "fairly unbalanced" might be closer. Cunningham does belong in jail. If he's a Moby then he's so good at it that he has defeated the purpose. --Rick Ballard

[on the article claiming Wilson as foreign agent]

that big stinker just won't flush . . . --Me

[on Wilson being prosecuted]

Much as I would love to see Wilson exposed for the poseur and fraud that he is , he ia a non-player in this indictment and this investigation --maryrose

Still, he was a lot more entertaining than Jukeboxgrad.

[Rick Ballard]

"Still, he was a lot more entertaining than Jukeboxgrad."

Oh lord, yes. Maybe he'll come back as himself on the other side. A simple pledge of honesty backed up by a bit of evidence in his commenting would be enough for me.

The other side could use a bit more humor here.

[The Disenfranchised Voter]

Well in tribute to Morrison, as it is his birthday:

YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF FUCKING SLAVES!!!

Get a clue. There is a reason why libertarians, such as myself, are now considering the Democrats as the lesser of the two evils...

Open your eyes.

[Cecil Turner]

There is a reason why libertarians, such as myself, are now considering the Democrats as the lesser of the two evils...

Why is it that I'm having just a little bit of a hard time buying that a person who calls himself "The Disenfranchised Voter" has been voting Republican? (See, you guys done made me cynical!) Cheers, dude.

[The Disenfranchised Voter]

Good for you Cecil!

Too bad I never said I voted Republican.

Excellent detective work though...

[Cecil Turner]

Too bad I never said I voted Republican.

Wasn't a big mystery. But if you'd mentioned that part, it'd have taken just a bit of the punch out of "now considering the Democrats as the lesser of the two evils," wouldn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it, it doesn't look like a real big change. (But by all means, work it.)

[TM]

Really don't think the blogosphere needs any more echo chambers, but enjoy talking to yourselves.

That may be Katrina's farewll speech; since she and Jay Dee have been posting from the same IP address, perhaps it is goodbye to him as well.

Doug J is posting from at least a couple of IP addresses (hey, I do too!).

My impression is that the comment blocking software at Typepad is meant to slow down spam-bots, not stop the truly determined schizos who think that disrupting a site is some sort of noble endeavor. I am resigned to his undertaking this as an ongoing challenge. Time will tell.

[The Disenfranchised Voter]

No you see Cecil, I lean libertarian. My point was that historically the Republicans are viewed as the lesser of the two evils w hen it comes to libertarians.

THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE.

The Democrats are now the lesser of the two evils. President Bush's approval rating reflect this.

You have lost us. Good job!

[TM]

Hmm, perhaps Disenfranchised Voter will agree to be our new guide to proper blog eitquette - since he/she last posted on Oct 27 at his/her own blog, free time should not be an issue.

And in a classic pot-kettle moment, I see Disenchantment criticizing Anon for, well, anonymity, but this profile tells me little.

[The Disenfranchised Voter]

What a bunch of [exp del] retards comparing me calling myself The Disenfranchised Voter to someone calling themselves Anonymous..yea bc they are exactly the same!

You guys are [exp del] morons.

If you want my name it is Robert S.

[exp del] [exp del].

[TM]

What a bunch of [exp del] retards...

Well, it was not a bunch, it was one.

Anyway, he is disenfranchised here.

Fortunately, his freedom of expression is not imperiled at his own blog, which may have a different speech code.

[Cecil Turner]

No you see Cecil, I lean libertarian. My point was that historically the Republicans are viewed as the lesser of the two evils w hen it comes to libertarians.

You're claiming to be a member of a group that leans Republican but may now go Democrat, but it's obvious you are not part of that group . . . at least not in the pertinent sense. If it were any less obvious, it'd be dishonest. As it is, it's just incoherent. Which indicates, in my opinion, your proper party affiliation ought to be Democrat. (Which, no surprise, is what you actually vote.) Great. We're all happy, and back on topic, even. Cheers.

[kim]

Here's the real joke, CT. In 30 years he'll no longer have to pose.
=================================================

[p.lukasiak]

My impression is that the comment blocking software at Typepad is meant to slow down spam-bots, not stop the truly determined schizos who think that disrupting a site is some sort of noble endeavor.

what funny is that DougJ's posts did not disrupt the site. They were only slightly more absurd (i.e. "Cunningham) than what many of the wingers here post.

(Here's a hint on how to disrupt a site. Bring up Israel in any discussion of foreign policy, or abortion in any discussion of domestic policy.)

[Gary Maxwell]

So Katrina = JayDee

Charles Winchester III in drag. I always thought it was Jamie Farr that wore the dresses?

(Unless the IP traces back to the library at some NorthEast small college library) anyway they did have the same smell downwind.

[kim]

Muslim ideology makes sinless deceiving in order to advance the religion. Christianity is too precious to discuss it.
===================================

[windansea]

Here's the real joke, CT. In 30 years he'll no longer have to pose.

or maybe he will get mugged tomorrow

[Davebo]

Geez!

Talk about pompous navel gazing!

disrupting a site?

Hilarious

[noah]

For an excellent article re the current panic over Iraq, Norman Podhoretz in Commentary (sorry I am "link copying disabled" but you can find the link at Powerline).

[boris]

Norman Podhoretz: The Panic Over Iraq

[clarice]

Heh! Mickey Kaus wonders if the anti-warniks in his party are so powerful that Hillary! will have to run as an independent..

[Gary Maxwell]

Hillary = Ralph Nader

Now I would buy a ticket to that show.

Mickey Kaus is a very sober and discerning Democrat. I would not dismiss him out of hand although at first blush I have to admit that this sounds preposterous ( Make a note for your files of my disbelief DougJ - I know you are lurking).

[clarice]

I love Mickey--but I think what he is saying more cleverly than I have is that in pandering to the anti-warniks in the party, the Dems are hurting the chances of their front runner to get the nomination.

(Maybe he attended something not unlike Mr. Garfinckle's New Method Hebrew School which I did where we learned the art of saying things which have at the same time more than one meaning.)

[noah]

Mickey Kaus a Democrat? Say it isn't so!! Why do I agree with practically everything he says?

A blue dog democrat perhaps.

[Gary Maxwell]

A blue dog democrat perhaps

No just a sober and realistic one, I know they seem to be rare these days. He can make an argument without resorting to a string of explitives and does not resort to Halliburton as the default answer to nigh every question. Quite liberal in most respects.

[clarice]

And quite honest and sensible--both on economics and on foreign policy. Go read his riff on Davis Bacon in the event that you've dispaired that there is anyone with a brain left in the other party.

[clarice]

And quite honest and sensible--both on economics and on foreign policy. Go read his riff on Davis Bacon in the event that you've despaired that there is anyone with a brain left in the other party.

[clarice]

dEspaired..urgh

[J. Caesar]

You're claiming to be a member of a group that leans Republican but may now go Democrat, but it's obvious you are not part of that group . . .

It's interesting how the modern Republican party displays very little different from 1920's Bolsheviks. That is, if you disagree with any small part of the policy agenda, you are immediately labeled an enemy.

The one sole difference is that we don't have to worry about getting killed with an ice pick in Mexico City. Well, hopefully that's true. The Abramhoff/Sun Cruz assassination plot is even putting that difference to the test.

Look in the mirror guys... When you started putting party above country, you jumped the sharp.

[TM]

Here is Davebo afrom John Cols's website, commenting on DougJ:

What was truly hilarious was the “go away, we want to have serious discussions/debates” meme tossed out.

I like Tom’s blog quite a bit, but serious discussions in the comments section? Right… Just like here!

Davebo, you're an ankle-biter who is unwilling or unable to contribute, and won't be missed.

And personally, in these various comment threads I routinely find a lot of wheat amongst the chaff that fools like you deliver.

[windansea]

as I jumped the sharp

and came down on the carp

thought it was a shark

then changed to a fark

[Cecil Turner]

Heh, this is precious. DougJ is holding forth in that Balloon Juice thread. He touts the Hitler quote bolded above as evidence of our lunacy. The funny thing is that he doesn't realize he got it from one of the visiting lefties (no offense, r.flanagan). Then he complains we didn't get it:

Even after I threw it in their face as an example of their lunacy, they didn’t seem to understand that it was a nutty thing to say.

I'd like to claim to be following Napoleon's famous advice ('never interrupt your opponent when he's busy making a mistake"). But the fact is, I was head-scratching as to why he was cannibalizing a fellow traveler. But now I get it, self-parody, right?

[Sue]

I remembered an exchange with DougJ that invovled Murtha and Kerry. I found it.

Murtha is a coward and a traitor. These Dumbokrat idea that serving in a war makes you a hero or a patriot is just a joke. Dodging bullets or pretending too (in the case of Murtha, Kerry, and Cleland), doesn't make you a patriot. What makes you a patriot is standing by your country and your leader right or wrong. Cheney may not have served, but he is a patriot and a true American hero. Murtha is a cowardly liar.

Posted by: DougJ | November 20, 2005 at 03:59 PM

DougJ-
"Calling us reTHUGlicans?"

What "us"? You're on your own here. Your Murtha bashing is so stereotypically absurd, it occurs to me to wonder if you're just DU dirty trick.

Posted by: JM Hanes | November 20, 2005 at 06:52 PM

[Geek, Esq.]

DougJ reeled me in over at John Cole's site--I'll admit it.

However, it was because I thought "What a delusional idiot" not "Wow, this guy makes a lot of sense."

[windansea]

Jpod sez

In Iraq today, however, and in the Middle East as a whole, a successful outcome is staring us in the face. Clearly, then, the panic over Iraq—which expresses itself in increasingly frenzied calls for the withdrawal of our forces—cannot have been caused by the prospect of defeat. On the contrary, my twofold guess is that the real fear behind it is not that we are losing but that we are winning, and that what has catalyzed this fear into a genuine panic is the realization that the chances of pulling off the proverbial feat of snatching an American defeat from the jaws of victory are rapidly running out.

[clarice]

Actually it is N Pod--

And Snow pickes up on the Barrett report where after spending millions of dollars to investigate, a swift Dem move will apparently keep us from seeing the evidence of a Praetorian guard in the Clinton WH, evidence that will destroy Hillary! it seems. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html

[clarice]

Actually it is N Pod--

And Snow picks up on the Barrett report where after spending millions of dollars to investigate, a swift Dem move will apparently keep us from seeing the evidence of a Praetorian guard in the Clinton WH, evidence that will destroy Hillary! it seems. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html

[clarice]

Actually it is N Pod--

And Snow picks up on the Barrett report where after spending millions of dollars to investigate, a swift Dem move will apparently keep us from seeing the evidence of a Praetorian guard in the Clinton WH, evidence that will destroy Hillary! it seems. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html

[Sue]

Geek,

I noticed your comment on Cole's site.

[TP]

Did maryrose leave with DougJ?

[Cecil Turner]

I noticed your comment on Cole's site.

Yes, that was awfully nice. Thanks, Geek. (Don't wanna pick out curtains any time soon, though.)

[kim]

Mick has great insight and a way with words. He doesn't like Kerry or Wilson.
==============================

[noah]

Bob Beckel recently on Fox News: Dean has never had an unexpressed thought!

[Gary Maxwell]

It's interesting how the modern Republican party displays very little different from 1920's Bolsheviks.

Now silly me I was still reeling from the Nazi accusations from Douggie. Now we are the Reds. The commies. The pinkos.

Or is this another spoof? See we have trouble telling when you are serious.

Meanwhile if you are looking for Commies you might try two places deep within the left. Code Pink who is snuggling up to the DNC chairman right now and vice versa, and A.N.S.W.E.R. in all of its detestable forms and permutations.

[noah]

Check out Dean holding CodePink tees on Michelle Malkin with S===Eating grin.

[Gary Maxwell]

This pic?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004026.htm>Code Pink

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here. Why do you associate me with DougJ?

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here.

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here. Why do you associate me with DougJ?

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here. Why do you associate me with DougJ?

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here.

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here. Why do you associate me with DougJ?

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here. Why do you associate me with DougJ?

[maryrose]

TP
I'm still here. Why do you associate me with DougJ?

[boris]

maryrose ??? is that you ??? can barely make out your post ... come towards the light ...

[maryrose]

Apologies, Computer glitch.

[TP]

Thank Krishna, you survived!!!

[kim]

It's a test of credulity. Typepad tells you it has rejected the comment, but it lies. Just post it once, I put in the code if necessary, then check later to make sure you are posted. Usually you are, so you do better if you don't believe everything you read on the screen.
=====================================================

[maryrose]

Kim
Thank you for being a calm reassuring presence.,

[clarice]

I told you we had to sacrifice a virgin to the typepad god...

[kim]

And apparently not a mortal sacrifice. Or did you mean DJ?
==========================================

[clarice]

HEH! The instructions were a bit cryptic now that you mention it.

[kim]

Heads or tails from the crypt.
==================================

[kim]

I've wondered a little about the distinction between offerings and sacrifices. I suspect sacrifices were luxurious, without any knowledge to back that up. Cryptic Delphos received offerings, I believe, not sacrifices, certainly not human ones, unless that is lost in antiquity.
========================================

[clarice]

I think you have to kill sacrifices..

[kim]

Yes, and unless they were eaten immediately, it was wasteful, hence luxurious.
===================================================

[Rick Ballard]

Well if it had to be a virgin, we should have gone with Katrina. There's a mind there that is totally unsullied by human thought.

[clarice]

Of course, there's the problem of burnt offerings..*sigh* Nothing's easy.

[Gary Maxwell]

Rick you should not talk about JayDee that way. Heck with his gender confusion troubles he might be quite vulnerable to a bout of depression if he thinks you dont care for him!

[Rick Ballard]

Well, a "You've Won an Exciting Two Day Tour of Mauna Loa and Kilauea" offer might do the trick. Cover all the bases, so to speak.

[clarice]

Brilliant idea, Rick--

[TP]

maryrose. Sorry it took me so long to respond. I associated you and DoufJ because he was glomming on to your posts like a lamprey.

[maryrose]

TP,
Thanks for getting back to me. Iassure you I am my own person.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Screaming "We should never have gone in, and I told you not to" is indeed an exit strategy, if the reasons we should never have gone in are still relevant -- and they are. Especially since the biggest reason we should never have gone in is that having our military tied up there is preventing us from doing anything militarily effective to prevent Iran from acquiring the Bomb (which was the official reason we went into Iraq; remember?) or to respond to any crisis produced by the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have it. If the Democrats started talking about THAT -- since nuclear proliferation and the nuclear terrorism that it makes possible are, by an overwhelming margin, the biggest threats to the US and to civilization right now -- they could indeed provide an entirely convincing argument for bailing out of Iraq right now, harmful side-effects or not.

But, alas, they aren't. (There was one brief shining moment during the first Bush-Kerry debate, when Kerry mentioned "nuclear proliferation" as American's real biggest threat, that I thought they would -- but it turned out that he was just parroting that line because his debate advisors had told him to use it, without the slightest understanding of what it actually meant. Where security policy is concerned, the two parties currently represent Dumb and Equally Dumb -- although this left me free to vote for Kerry last time on domestic issues.)

[clarice]

Times Online says the Israelis are preparing air strikes on Iran. Readying for Strikes

[kim]

Well, naw, that's not the biggest reason we shouldn't have gone into Iraq; with no involvement in Iraq we wouldn't be entering Iran, yet, anyway. One must let the revolution ripen, yet pre-empt the bomb. Besides, just as the purple finger revolution in Iraq is inspiring Iranians, we are getting ready to turn domestic security in Iraq over to the Iraqis. Thus, we'll have a ready, nearby, force, in Iraq, if necessary in Iran.

We should have gone into Iraq. Read Charles Duelfer and Claudia Rosett.
=========================================

[kim]

C, I predicted those for a year ago. There is evidence that the Israelis will not let the mad ayatollahs achieve the destructive capablility to take out a chunk of Israel. This mission is an order of magnitude more difficult than the one to Osirak, because there are at least 10 sites to be neutralized, because of redundancy built in. They were also built to withstand air strikes, as Osirak was not. This is also much further from Israel. There will be US, not European, help, but not advertised. The Israelis will be saving the Europeans butts, too, the ungrateful wretches.
========================================

[clarice]

I'm informed when they did Osirik in 1981 Jordan looked the other way as they flew over..IIRc the most significant sites are in the SW part of the country which is predominently Arab and Sunni. I recall reading the Israelis had subs in the Indian Ocean--Maybe it won't be airstrikes or ALL airstrikes.

[clarice]

With all the leaking here, I hope they don't tell us or count us --just do it and tell us when the bombs are falling. Sorry. That's the way I feel. I wouldn't put my life in U.S. hands right now.

[Cecil Turner]

This mission is an order of magnitude more difficult than the one to Osirak, because there are at least 10 sites to be neutralized, because of redundancy built in.

Yes it is. Personally, I don't think it's doable (I used to plan this sort of thing for a living, and these look impractical, but without detailed targeting data, it's impossible to say for sure). It certainly would require US acquiescence at least (to overfly Iraqi airspace). Also, this bit is dubious:

It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 — the equivalent of the SAS — and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling.

It's probably just within range for a hi-hi-hi profile, but that'd be about as sneaky as a marching band. Possible, but very risky.

Especially since the biggest reason we should never have gone in is that having our military tied up there is preventing us from doing anything militarily effective to prevent Iran from acquiring the Bomb . . .

As discussed above, this is completely backwards. Nothing short of a threatened invasion would be effective, and there is no way to invade Iran except from Iraq. (It's the only place with a staging area accessible from a deep-water port--which is required for positioning heavy equipment.) Far from "preventing" such an operation, OIF was a prerequisite. And sorry, but anyone who suggests otherwise is operationally illiterate.