Buchanan, Scarborough claimed that a military strike against Iran would be popular, but polls suggest otherwise
SUMMARY: On MSNBC, Pat Buchanan claimed
that a U.S. attack on Iran is "comin[g]" and went on to
assert that a military strike against Iran would be "a very popular
initial move." Joe Scarborough agreed, stating that "a military
strike against Iran
initially would be extraordinarily popular with the American people." But
polling data show that most Americans say they would oppose an attack on Iran.
On the August 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan suggested that U.S. officials were "laying down a predicate" for "military strikes" on Iran. Buchanan claimed that an attack on Iran is "comin[g]" and went on to assert that a military strike against Iran would be "a very popular initial move." Host Joe Scarborough agreed, stating that "a military strike against Iran initially would be extraordinarily popular with the American people." Buchanan asserted that "if you took polls of the American people, they would put Iran right up at the top of America's enemies list and much more fearful of Iran than they are of anything coming out of Iraq."
When Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox questioned Buchanan and Scarborough's assertions, characterizing their discussion as "fantasy talk," Scarborough claimed that "military strikes and Iran with middle America, that is not fantasy at all, it would be popular."
While Americans place Iran at the top of the list of countries most dangerous to the United States, a clear majority of Americans say they would oppose an attack on Iran. A May 2007 poll conducted by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. found that 63 percent of respondents said they would oppose a U.S. government decision "to take military action in Iran." By contrast, only 33 percent of those polled responded that they would favor U.S. military action in Iran.
Polls from earlier this year also show the public is opposed to an attack on Iran:
- A March poll conducted by CBS News asked respondents to select one of three statements that came closest to describing their opinion about the type of threat that Iran posed to the United States. Fifty-four percent of respondents said that Iran was "[a] threat that could be contained with diplomacy," while 18 percent said Iran was "a threat requiring military action now." Eighteen percent of those surveyed said that Iran did not pose a current threat to the United States. The margin of error for this poll was four percentage points.
- A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted in late February asked about what means the United States should employ to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Fifty percent of respondents said the United States should use only diplomacy; 37 percent said the United States should stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons at any cost; 13 percent of the sample did not know.
Finally, a February 15 survey report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press noted that "In recent weeks, the Bush administration also has highlighted the increasing threat posed by Iran, both because of its nuclear program and its reported support for anti-U.S. insurgents in Iraq. But public perceptions of the Iranian threat have not increased over the past year."
From the August 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BUCHANAN: They're laying down a predicate, Joe, for military strikes on the al-Quds camps inside Iran, which I think would unite the Iranian people behind their government, and they would respond, and I think then they'd go for the nuclear sites. Now this is what I think is coming. I don't know that it's coming right now, but I don't see how the president, having pretty much painted himself into a corner, when your military guys are saying "Mr. President, you got Iranians in here, are training these people and providing them things to kill American boys."
SCARBOROUGH: And Pat, just for the record, you think that would be a disaster if we struck out militarily against Iran, don't you?
BUCHANAN: Politically? Now let me tell you, I don't know what -- my guess would be that [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] and Miss [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] and the others would be in a state of paralysis because I think it might be a very popular initial move. And elements of the Democratic Party would support -- you take -- [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT] would cheer his head off. He's already calling openly for military strikes.
SCARBOROUGH: And Pat, you are exactly right. The thing is - and this is how sometimes some of the people that write for The New Yorker or The New York Times or The Washington Post just don't get it. A strike, a military strike against Iran initially would be extraordinarily popular. With the American people, it would. It's just like Iraq. The American people are overwhelmingly saying that there is a connection between Iraq and 9-11. Seventy-five percent of Americans supported the invasion. And you would have the same thing initially again. But of course, it would cause a tremendous mess for the next two or three years. We finally have a French president on our side; we finally have a German chancellor on our side. Things are starting to equalize. But if we go into Iran, it starts all over again, doesn't it?
BUCHANAN: You don't know what happens really, if you -- I mean, initially, as I say, look, the Americans initially would not go after the nuclear sites. Because that would say, in effect, to the Europeans and all the others that, you know, forget it, we' re fed up with the [United Nations] Security Council. You guys move too slow with your sanctions. We're going to settle this ourselves. But strikes on those camps, I think if you took polls of the American people, they would put Iran right up at the top of America' s enemies list and much more fearful of Iran than they are of anything coming out of Iraq. So I think in the Democratic Party, of course, you've got the -- with due respect - you've got the Israeli lobby and Israel, and you've got the hard-line like Lieberman, and you've got the neoconservatives, and you've a lot of evangelical Christians and others who think this is a real menace and you ought to hit them. I think what would happen, Joe, is there would be stoned silence initially and statements like, "Well, if the president has determined that these camps are being used to kill American troops, then he was right to strike them."
SCARBOROUGH: And you know Pat, the thing is, you're exactly right.
ANA MARIE COX: Can I interrupt you guys with your fantasy talk?
SCARBOROUGH: Sure, what fantasy talk?
COX: Well, just to think that it's going to popular, to think that bombing Iran is going to be like --
SCARBOROUGH: Military strikes in Iran, with Middle America, that's not fantasy at all. It would be popular.
COX: Well, it would be fantasy -- I mean, you said that Americans backed, you know, the invasion of Iraq because they thought Iraq was responsible for 9-11. So you're saying, like, if the president lies to the American people again, then it would be popular?
SCARBOROUGH: The thing is, I don't think you're gonna find very many foreign policy analysts that would suggest that Iran being involved in Iraq and killing American troops would be fantasy. I think there's --
COX: No, that's not the part that's fantasy.
SCARBOROUGH: I think there's pretty hard evidence about that.
COX: That's not the part that's fantasy.
SCARBOROUGH: And so, if the president of the United States shows pictures -- I mean, again, a Democratic president could do it or Republican president could do it. I'm not talking about what's right or wrong. I'm talking about what works for the American people. And it's just, you know --
COX: I think the reaction of American people to pictures of American soldiers, you know, being injured by Iranian IEDs [improvised explosive devices] would be, "Get Americans out of Iraq." I mean, I think that it's not going to be "bomb Iran."
SCARBOROUGH: Maybe in Georgetown, or Northwest Washington [D.C.], but not in Nebraska.
Yes, the whole problem with the US and the Middle East is that we haven't dropped enough bombs yet.
BTW, thanks for getting back on task for the moment, MMFA.
How many is enough?
I forgot to turn off my sarcasm.
</sarc>
That's OK. As usual, Pat Buchanan forgot to turn ON his brain.
:-)
I would like to ask Buchanan and Scarborough that if everyone knows that we will "bomb Iran", would they find it acceptable if Iran would initiate a pre-emptive strike on American targets IN America. Isn't that what we would be doing? And for those 9-11/Iraq nuts, I don't remember these lying ba$tard$ connecting Iran with 9/11 so they haven't attacked us.
And for those who feel that Iran is supplying the Iraqis with arms, IED's, aren't we doing the same things " The president deciding", you have got to be kidding me.
Yeah Pat, real popular another war that destroys our world.
Neocon nimrods like Buchanan think wars like that will lead to the End Times, and so they are doing God's work......
Let this stand as another testament to Bush Adminstration's disregard of Shinseki in favor of waging war on the cheap. Did they, for one moment, believe that occupying and stabilizing a country of 26 million enclosed by 2300 miles of wide open border with 130,000 troops was going to be effective in curbing outside intervention? It seems Cheney suffered amnesia when the plans got drawn up.
This insanity must end. This administration is addicted to long distance war and violence. Our country is being run by psychotics and we must make our voice heard that we will not permit any attack on Iran.
http://democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/Peaceact/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=358
I'm writing letters to my Senators and Congressman as well.
Great point Mary,Listening to the latter parts of this speech that GWB gave at the American Legion it seems he is setting the stage again just as he did prior to the invasion of Iraq. If Darth Cheney goes on the speech circuit or starts appearing on the news talk shows and predicting that the Iranian people will greet us as liberators; then we all need to just bend over, stick our heads between our legs, and kiss our azz goodbye. Because we just might get the NUKLUR holocaust Bush is now using to scare his right wing base. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2343791.ecehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060224.html` The international community is also speaking with one voice to the radical regime in Tehran. Iran is a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people, and denying them basic liberties and human rights. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorists and is actively working to expand its influence in the region. The Iranian regime has advocated the destruction of our ally, Israel. And the Iranian regime is defying the world with its ambitions for nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats, and Iran's aggressive behavior and pursuit of nuclear weapons is increasing its international isolation. When Iran's case was brought before the IAEA earlier this month, 27 nations voted against Iran, including Russia and China and India and Brazil and Sri Lanka and Egypt and Yemen. The only nations to support Iran were Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. Now Iran's case will be taken up to the U.N. Security Council. The free world is sending the regime in Tehran a clear message: We're not going to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. The world's free nations are also worried because the Iranian regime is not transparent. You see, a non-transparent society that is the world's premier state sponsor of terror cannot be allowed to possess the world's most dangerous weapons. So, as we confront Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, we're also reaching out to the Iranian people to support their desire to be free; to build a free, democratic, and transparent society. To support the Iranian people's efforts to win their own freedom, my administration is requesting $75 million in emergency funds to support democracy in Iran. This is more than a fourfold increase over current levels of funding. These new funds will allow us to expand radio and television broadcasts into Iran. They will support reformers and dissidents and human rights activists and civil society organizers in Iran, so Iranians can organize and challenge the repressive policies of the clerical regime. They will support student exchanges, so we can build bridges of understanding between our people and expose more Iranians to life in a free society. By supporting democratic change in Iran, we will hasten the day when the people of Iran can determine their own future and be free to choose their own leaders. Freedom in the Middle East requires freedom for the Iranian people, and America looks forward to the day when our nation can be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.So friends and neighbors we need to get on the horn, break out the old typewriter, fire up the keyboard and let our representatives know that we are not going to let GW get us into another war.
Did I hear Scars say "I'm not talking about what's right or wrong. I'm talking about what works for the American people". We'll Mr. Joe, what works for the American people is not what this Administration cares about..It is what works for them, to include Oil, war-profiteering and Oil.
What would also work for the American is to flush out the White House. Now I think most Americans agree with that.
I don't think these two guys have a clue as to the mindset of the majority of Americans.
Most Americans [now] believe Iraq was a mistake. They want to see an end to that war.
I strongly doubt that a military strike against Iran would be popular for even a half a second.
I think MOST Americans would be outraged!
You guys are looking at this all wrong. Joe and Pat are talking TV ratings here. And there's nothing more your patriotic midwest conservative enjoys more than watching war on TV.
They're hot for another episode of "shock and awe". I mean, lascivious bathroom sex is OK for adults, but think of the children. Watching an arab city burn is more family-appropriate fare. And, more importantly, a flaming senator can't hold a candle to the fire in some middle eastern night sky when it comes to selling 30 seconds of advertising space.
The fact is, flashy explosions at early 0-dark-thirty in Iran coincide so perfectly with the Homeland prime-time, NOT bombing Iran would just be a foolish business decision.
There was a time when I would read a post like this and think, "How can anybody be that cynical?"
Now, I read it and think, "Good point."
War is a game to people like Buchanan and Scarborough. Few in their social circles has family fighting and dying in Iraq; to them, war is a panorama that unfolds on their teevees, free of any consequence except what it does for the ratings.
And history shows that those who question the need for war will be excluded from the airwaves (ask Phil Donahue).
I find the cavalier tone they take about going to war to be disgusting. Conversations like this breed cynicism.
TV "Newspeople" encourage killing people to increase their own ratings....
What a headline. But sadly, the current state of "News" in this country.
The only question I have is how do these people sleep at night or have they been hired because their ethics have been surgically removed...
Just what America needs.
More War.
And a war with the most nationalistic nation in the middle east.
Where would we get the manpower to fight another war?
Sad thing is, there's a sizable amount of the Iranian population that is pro-Western/pro-American. I'd hate to see hostilities started by us that destroyed the chance for a democratic revolution from within Iran.
Forgotten in all of this is the Israeli stockpile of nuclear weapons. I hope Bush doesn't decide to bomb Israel.
And thank God Bush/Cheney weren't around during VietNam...Remember the Russians and Chinese were supplying the North. Would these nuts have had the balls to bomb either of them...
Well, I don't think anyone running for president right now in this country will allow Iran to acquire nookular weapons. I'm not for striking Iran, but that country with nuclear weapons is a very frightening prospect.
By "that country" I mean the religious zealots in charge of Iran. As I said earlier, I think the Iranian people are some of the most pro-democracy people in the mid-east. Especially young Iranians, who are probably the most progressive group of people in the Muslim world.
Iran with nukes is scary...sure enough. However, is it any scarier than Pakistan? China? North Korea? Is it any scarier than all those Nukes sitting around in the former Soviet countries? I don't see how starting a war with Iran makes us any safer.
You know what country with nuclear weapons really scares me? The USA, with "leaders" like Bush and Cheney, "Democrats" like Joe Loserman and "conservative" thinkers like Newt Gingrich.
Ane there's still one year and three months before we can do very much about it. Be very afraid, Americans...
Yeah makes you wonder what WOULD have happened there if Britian and Russia hadnt stopped the Iranian constitutional revolution of 1905-1911 and if WE along with Britian hadnt overthrown their incipient Democracy and Democratically elected leader Mohamed Mossedegh in 1953. Sine they are not Arabs culturally nor are they from a tribal culture they should be a natural ally in the region. It can still happen with the right kind of diplomacy. However scare any nation and they move to the right. Its a tricky situation but not hopeless
Thanks for pointing that out, Wagner.
I've traveled quite a bit, and have met many Iranian (or as they would tell you, Persian) folks who have been some of the most courteous, respectful, and generous people I have encountered. They are usually very mild-mannered, and don't often bring up topics such as religion and politics.
It would be a tragedy for us to attack a nation full of decent human beings, based on the actions of a few of their religious nutcase leaders.
Here's the big question...Why the hell should we believe anything the Bush administration tells us about what Iran is or isn't doing in Iraq? If the American people fall for this dog-n-pony show again...after what we've been through in Iraq...then we're stupider than I thought.
It kind of reminds me of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
Pat Buchanan claimed that a U.S. attack on Iran is "comin[g]" and went on to assert that a military strike against Iran would be "a very popular initial move." Joe Scarborough agreed, stating that "a military strike against Iran initially would be extraordinarily popular with the American people."
Is taking drugs required to speak on TV shows? Are these guys nuts? How would starting another war with another Middle Eastern country (Iran) while still fighting in another Middle Eastern country (Iraq) be popular? Speaking of the twilight zone, what the heck are these guys thinking? Would anyone besides the 30% kool-aid drinkers believe anything that comes out of the mouth of THIS administration?
Make no mistake; the only reason this is on the table is to distract us from the disaster they've created in Iraq. The Republican party is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of its own lies...this would be an act of desperation. After all, look how they benefitted from 9/11. They must believe that the American public is so sheepish and stupid that we'd flock to their banner once again if they just create a little more turmoil in the Middle East...possibly igniting the whole region. Fear is the only thing they have left.
Nerzog,
I agree with you and we must remember that old saying..."There is nothing to fear, but the Lunatics in the White House" or something like that. I usually can't quote correctly.
You'd think that a story as explosive as this would generate more interest. I guess the W.I.T.H. crowd is too busy in the bathroom.
Oh, well...to each his own.
Sorry people, just can't do a cut and paste from MS word to MMFA and get it to come out right.
So here goes, again.
Great point Mary,Listening to the latter parts of this speech that GWB gave at the American Legion it seems he is setting the stage again just as he did prior to the invasion of Iraq. If Darth Cheney goes on the speech circuit or starts appearing on the news talk shows and predicting that the Iranian people will greet us as liberators; then we all need to just bend over, stick our heads between our legs, and kiss our azz goodbye. Because we just might get the NUKLUR holocaust Bush is now using to scare his right wing base. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2343791.ece http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060224.html ` The international community is also speaking with one voice to the radical regime in Tehran. Iran is a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people, and denying them basic liberties and human rights. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorists and is actively working to expand its influence in the region. The Iranian regime has advocated the destruction of our ally, Israel. And the Iranian regime is defying the world with its ambitions for nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats, and Iran's aggressive behavior and pursuit of nuclear weapons is increasing its international isolation. When Iran's case was brought before the IAEA earlier this month, 27 nations voted against Iran, including Russia and China and India and Brazil and Sri Lanka and Egypt and Yemen. The only nations to support Iran were Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. Now Iran's case will be taken up to the U.N. Security Council. The free world is sending the regime in Tehran a clear message: We're not going to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. The world's free nations are also worried because the Iranian regime is not transparent. You see, a non-transparent society that is the world's premier state sponsor of terror cannot be allowed to possess the world's most dangerous weapons. So, as we confront Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, we're also reaching out to the Iranian people to support their desire to be free; to build a free, democratic, and transparent society. To support the Iranian people's efforts to win their own freedom, my administration is requesting $75 million in emergency funds to support democracy in Iran. This is more than a fourfold increase over current levels of funding. These new funds will allow us to expand radio and television broadcasts into Iran. They will support reformers and dissidents and human rights activists and civil society organizers in Iran, so Iranians can organize and challenge the repressive policies of the clerical regime. They will support student exchanges, so we can build bridges of understanding between our people and expose more Iranians to life in a free society. By supporting democratic change in Iran, we will hasten the day when the people of Iran can determine their own future and be free to choose their own leaders. Freedom in the Middle East requires freedom for the Iranian people, and America looks forward to the day when our nation can be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.So friends and neighbors we need to get on the horn, break out the old typewriter, fire up the keyboard and let our representatives know that we are not going to let GW get us into another war.Oh, well I tried.
While not exactly a good thing, I don't know why I should crapping in my pants with worry about Iran having a bomb. The know what will happen to them if they try to use it. I am much more concerned about what can happen to us if Cheney gratuitously attacks them. For starters, the Straights of Houmez are closed and nothing gets out of the Gulf resulting in an oil shortage that will make the '70s embargo look like kid stuff.
did bombing the hell out of Bosnia help Clinton's popularity?
J bull lets another one rip. Geeze it stinks in here.
So, let's see--we're already at war with Afghanistan, Iraq--let's invade a third Middle Eastern country and start WWIII!
The whole Bush administration is a bunch of sociopaths.
I think Bush and Cheney should be impeached and removed from office before they completely destroy our nation.
Buchanan was against the Iraq War and Scarborough seemed to come to his senses and admitted Bush had screwed up in Iraq. So what is this, then?
Scarborough has two sons. I doubt he'd be warmongering if there was a draft and his sons had to risk being injured or killed over in the Middle East.
I saw the segment with Scarborough and Buchanan laughing and talking about going to war with IRAN. Ana Marie Cox tried to indicate that perhaps the Bush administration was lying to us again like they did before invading IRAQ, but Scarborough and Buchanan, two right wing radicals, would have no part of her argument. FOX News is also touting going to war with IRAN, and if FOX News is pushing for war with IRAN you can bet your bottom dollar it is because that is what the Bush White House wants them to report about. I write a guest blog for NEWS HOUNDS http://www.newshounds.us/ and this weekend I will be pointing out how FOX News is in a not so subtle manner setting the table for a war with IRAN. My guest blog appears under my name: Bill Corcoran.
YOU KNEW IT WAS COMING. NOW THAT THE MILITARY PART OF THE WAR IS GOING WELL AND HE HAS ANOTHER NUT JOB LIKE HIM IN FRANCE WHO HE KNOW WILL GO TO WAR WITH HIM OF COURSE THE MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN IS BACK ON. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL FALL FOR THE LIE AGAIN.
You've gotta give Scarborough and Buchanan credit for saying that bombing Iran would be a huge mistake. Moreover, the polls you cite were taken before the Administration started making the case that Iran was killing Americans in Iraq. I hope to God you and Ana Marie Cox are right in asserting that there would not be widespread popular support for bombing Iran, but there's always a chance that a skillful propaganda campaign could change that.
There's no question in my mind that Scarborough and Buchanan ARE right about that first point -- bombing Iran is a colossally bad idea. I'm not even convinced that Iran -- even an Iran with nuclear weapons -- is much of a security threat to the U.S.... or even to Israel. Iran may well support terrorist groups, but on the whole I think their goal is a stable region and unencumbered trade.
I just wish Dick Cheney could get it through his pretty little head that not every situation on the world stage is analogous to Europe in 1938.What in god's name is wrong with these people? We're mired down in wars that they're unwilling to leave, but they want to remove an entire segment of our military force in order to take yet another country? Is Iran just not democratic enough yet? Do we have to deliver their people, too? Maybe Mahmoud (yeah, I'm not willing to look up his name) has some chipper-shredders hidden somewhere that we have to ferret out? These men are absolutely insane and I can't believe there is a public discussion at this level that is seriously considering the value of spending more money to attack a country that poses no immediate threat to our country.
"The American people are overwhelmingly saying that there is a connection between Iraq and 9-11."
Yeah, that's because you @%#!^*#s kept pounding the dual war drums of Iraq and 9/11 together until the majority of the American populace couldn't tell the difference between the two. The American people would never have made that connection if the media didn't whore itself out to this corrupted and amoral administration's lies and halftruths.
"Iran right up at the top of America's enemies list..."?
No, the top spot would be the American news media followed closely by the Bush administration and their enablers.
Inexorable March to War with Iran,
My, my, the bloviating Buchanan is once again stepping outside the boundaries of True Conservatism with calls to favorably disposed Americans initially cheering for pre-emptive Iranian strikes. What is it it with B? On the one side he seems to agree with the sentiments espoused by the Rightish Libertarians at Anti-War.com and before the cameras with Scarborough and company, Pat B decides to issue statements confirming that bombing Iran will be supported en masse by the American people.
Perhaps, Buchanan is beginning to sense an aura of inevitability that the NeoConmen have already decided to unleash the precipitous rush to WW4. B has traditionally maligned the NeoConmen but no doubt due to his reading of the situation, he probably is covering all bets.
So, Here it is. The Bushistas have all asets in place for a 10,000 target assault on the country of Iran. Yep, The recent departures of the likes of Rove, Gonzo et al, signify that the Cheney-NeoCon lunatics have already decided to gin up the war against Iran. Even life-long sycophants for Bush like these two recognize a limit to absurdity. WE will see a full- frontal aasault on the American psyche very reminiscent of pre-Iraq war days in the next few months. Watch for all the diatribes soon to be emanating from the NY Times,WSJ, American Enterprise Institute (NeoCon Central), and numerous editions of FAUX News with William Kristol. etc. Sound familar??
Question? Is the administration fully aware that at any one time the Iranian Reactors are additionally manned by thousands of Russian Engineers and Technicians? So, how do you think Putin will react if WE suddenly cause the deaths of Russian citizens?? Interesting question??
The Iranians have a 5000 year-old history and the NeoConmen think that bombing them back to the Stone-Age will induce their citizens to overthrow the Mullahs,. Yeah, sure, Ya might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.
As for Buchanan, word has it that he is chastising the DEMS for standing by helplessly as Bush prepares to unleash the Dogs of War once again.
Go figure !!! But then again, Pat is leveraging his bets much to the detriment of the American people.
"So, how do you think Putin will react if WE suddenly cause the deaths of Russian citizens?? Interesting question??"
Your interesting question made me physcially wince as I read it. I didn't realize Iran and Russia were so closely related.
I wonder if Moscow's recent cold shoulder isn't because of the missile defense system, but because our distant war drums heading toward Iran. Ye gods. You know Moscow wouldn't ally themselves with us.
Putin's reaction to a pre-emptive aerial assault on Iran's Russian-designed and built reactors with potential loss of Russian lives actually transcends the Missile deployment impasse which the US has fostered.
The Russians, recently emerging with new found wealth via their substantial Oil and Gas reserves have decided that the US Uni-polar vision of the world WILL not stand.
Putin is a Master Chess Player and is a Match for the NeoConmen who He knows ultimate goal is the dismememberment of the Russian Federation, a la Iraq EXCEPT on a massive scale , SINCE it is only Russia that has rough nuclear parity with Uncle Sam. Remove Russian influence according to the NeoConmen and no Nation can challenge the US.
Putin is having none of it and perhaps it is Payback. How so? Well, under Clinton and the Wall Street Neo-Liberals , Russia was pillaged, extorted and reduced to POVERTY while Yeltsin drank himself into stupors of delusion that the WEST could be trusted. Thus Russia is rearming and deploying their Topol ICBM force as well as redeploying 24 hour aerial border patrols with their Bomber forces.
Make no mistake about it, folks. This is the stuff of World War AND the Cheney-NeoCon faction is absolutley and resolutely determined to ignite it...... Unless the American citizenry and Congress grows some spine and QUICKLY!!!
Joe and Pat have seriously started to loose it. I thought there for awhile that they were starting to coming around and at least make a little sense, but I can see now they just have brief moments of clarity in their insanity. Bush always says he's the "decision maker", but what good military commander fights a war on two fronts if he doesn't have to? And then add Iran into the mix? Any American with no military training (such as myself) can see this this would be a terrible idea. What scares me is that to them, diplomacy is not an option. They're not even trying to talk to Iran! And to say Liberman is a Democrat is an insult to Democrats everywhere if you ask me.
Would it be as popular as Titanic or Lord of the Rings?Also, are we talking individual movies or do series (e.g., LOTR or Harry Potter) count?Well... I just answered part of my own question by re-reading above. Fantasies are out, so forget my LOTR and Potter question. I guess we're limited to drama, comedy or documentary... maybe musical. Anywho, it's great to see a 4-F reject (Buchanan) and an OH-MY-GOD-TRIAL-LAWYER! (cup'o'Joe) salivating about our chance to get a bunch more people killed. What a splendidly popular idea.
Navy_Guy,
I must say you sure have a way with words. It is truly scary that the chicken-hawks who inhabit the two most senior postition in our Government think it no big deal to fight two wars, stretch our military to the breaking point, and still say "Iran, you better do as we say, not as we do".
I am truly worried about the future of our democracy, our country, and our people. However, that being said, if our democratic congress, even with a pencil thin majority, will just display some backbone and show the two mentioned above that the AMERICAN PEOPLE are still in charge of our destiney then we may still have a chance to survive the disaster of the last seven years.
You need to write your representives and let them know just how you feel!
ITS ABOUT DEM TIME!!!