Let's see, Saddam was dumping the dollar and we invaded them.
Now that Iran has dumped the dollar.....well.

uncle wally @ 2:

yeah, sure, let's go bombing now. That preemptive strike we did in Iraq is still going on, and we all feel so much safer. By the way, who's next after Iran?

Syria.

Which is probably why Chimpy gets so defensive when asked about it - he has trouble when events transpire other than how he wants them to.

The big question is 'when,' and that's followed by 'what will the Democrats/American people/other countries do about it?'

Walsh: “…It would be extremely costly. I mean,

I am beginning to be tired of this mentality in the US. Not even critics of the administration cares about non-us deaths. I have come to the conclusion that major parts of the US population is a lot less civilized than assumed. They simply don't care about people elsewhere.

IN PREPARATION FOR INVASION OF IRAN, ADMINISTRATION DIGS UP THE SHAH

haha Joshua Muravchik looked like a deer caught in the headlights when chris matthews pressed him.

I actually watched this live yesterday and it was funny how Chris Matthes kept asking that idiot with the glasses, "give me an explanation to why we have to bomb Iran now." and the idiot kept stumbling over his words.

It's funny. People want to bomb Iran, yet they have not good reason as to why. This is what you get when you get people that are too fanatical and have them in power. I.E. Bush, Cheney, and the whole neo-conservative nut jobs.

Who died and made us the world's police? I don't hear the rest of the world going apeshit about this....and Russia will not be too happy with a "bomb Iran" plan....its just paving the way for more military industrial complex riches, so when Bush says " I need another 46 bill....no make that 80 billion for THREE wars" everyone will HAVE to agree and more money will flow to the bomb makers...

People want to bomb Iran, yet they have not good reason as to why.

I would imagine Dr. Freud could hazard a guess...

Shadowgm @ 3:

uncle wally @ 2:

yeah, sure, let's go bombing now. That preemptive strike we did in Iraq is still going on, and we all feel so much safer. By the way, who's next after Iran?

Syria.

Which is probably why Chimpy gets so defensive when asked about it - he has trouble when events transpire other than how he wants them to.

The big question is 'when,' and that's followed by 'what will the Democrats/American people/other countries do about it?'

I swear. I don't fucking understand Bush's and Heart Attack Cheney's logic. So, we have to spread democracy to the Middle East and all other dictatorships around the world. WHY!?!?!?

So by their logic, North Korea, Cuba, Communist China, and all other dictatorships are up next. Nice mentality Neo-Cons...

If I want to muzzle these maniacs who call for a suicidal war with Iran, would I be denying them First Amendment rights?

I think not. As the cliche goes, Freedom of Speech doesn't cover the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie house. I'm surprised that anyone thinks it covers an exhortation of mass murder.

In a perfect world when asked "why bomb iran now?" Muravchik would've looked down in shame and said "because my penis doesn't work".

lucid fiction @ 1:

Let's see, Saddam was dumping the dollar and we invaded them.
Now that Iran has dumped the dollar.....well.

Right now I'm split between Kucinich and Ron Paul. My appeal to Paul is that he would get us back on this gold standard so our dollar isn't some worthless piece of paper that can be intentionally driven down. The U.S. government would start creating it's own money and stop paying the federal reserve [private] bank interest on borrowing from it. And we'd pull out of the Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran wars. That takes care of a lot. The dollar becomes stable and we are out of those foreign wars.

Ain't being an EMPIRE a bitch?

He can't be serious. I mean who in their right mind would think ...

Never mind. I just answered my own question.

During this "debate", not one of these so-called experts thought it prudent to mention that Iran has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of building a nuclear bomb; rather, it intends to build a nuclear facility in its use of that country's energy production. If it did somehow manage to build a nuclear bomb, it would be used as a deterrent against Israel's 250 or so nuclear weapons. Yet this discussion on Hardball, the show that allegedly asks the tough questions that the other shows shy away from from, is what passes for trenchant political analysis on the corporate airwaves.

Where does AEI propose getting ground troops to stabilize the situation?

AEI helped do analysis on the US surge in Iraq, which has failed. Is there something which AEI has to warrant confidence in their "analysis" on Iraq?

The talking heads for war.

Very pro-war and happily trying to talk everyone else into supporting their latest war adventure. While they sit here pontificating in luxurious comfort. I have yet to see one of these talking heads sign up.

Israel should just tell Iran look if you guys fu*k with us we are sending EVERYTHING we got at you. Nukes, you name it. Now, do we want to talk peace? Cooperation, trade, prosperity, growth? Good. We thought so. Now, let's get started and put our peoples talents to good use and do something for the future of humanity.

Shadowgm @ 3:

uncle wally @ 2:

yeah, sure, let's go bombing now. That preemptive strike we did in Iraq is still going on, and we all feel so much safer. By the way, who's next after Iran?

Syria.

Which is probably why Chimpy gets so defensive when asked about it - he has trouble when events transpire other than how he wants them to.

The big question is 'when,' and that's followed by 'what will the Democrats/American people/other countries do about it?'

Well I already know what canada will do. They'll wait for the chimp's handler, darth dildo, to send them a note on what they should do next.
!$*(#%&@*&! stephen 'fat boy' harper.

Screw iran. Bomb ottawa!

Forgive me if this has already been covered but from what I can gather, Stark apologized on the floor this morning.

pissed off patricia @ 39:

Forgive me if this has already been covered but from what I can gather, Stark apologized on the floor this morning.

Yes....sad but true...see my comments @ # 30 above...

If the US attacks Iran, other nations are prepared to impose serious consequences on the United States. The US -- when it expands illegal warfare into Iraq -- is acting like Japan when it attacked Pearl Harbor. After WWII, the Japanese failed in their argument that they were attempting to "stop" US efforts to block the Japanese expansion; similarly, the US has no legal foundation when it argues it is attempting to "block" Iran from defending itself against an expanded illegal war in iraq.

The Vice President and President have been linked with war crimes. Congress needs to impeach. Without impeachment, prosecutions of the President and Vice -- while they remain in office -- is an option.

If the US civil leadership in Congress and the legal community refuses to impose legal consequences on either the President or Vice President through either impeachment or prosecution, what options are there to lawfully punish the President and Vice President for illegal warfare?

1. Other nations may use lawful options to punish the American leadership.

2. War criminals -- when they lead a nation -- put their nation at risk. Other nations have the legal authority under Geneva to attack the US military, command and control, and other war-supporting infrastructure.

3. State officials have a duty to end unlawful support for the President and VP. This means ending all contracts, support, and assistance to the illegal war: Ending contracts, removing services, and prosecuting those who attempt to support an illegal war in Iraq and Iran.

I am really getting fucking tired of these warhawks clamoring for war!!!
These assholes need to be stopped! It's gettin to the point to where I'm ready to start thinkin "by any means necesary"... surely I'm not alone...

Ah , Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Away Iran

Oh Bombed out Iran, take my schame
Bombed Iran
You got me rockin' and a-rollin in my pants'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Bombed Iran Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

Went to a Irance, lookin' for Domance
Saw Bombed out Iran so I thought I'd take a chance
With Bomb Bomb Iran

Take my hand gernades
You got me bombin' and a-wreckin'
(Oh! Oh! Ouch!)
bombin' and a-wreckin'
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
bomb bomb all them black like sheep

Balh balh balh balh bomb Iran
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Away Iran

Bomb Bomb away , take my hand gernades
Bomb Iran
You got me wreckin' and a-steallin'
wreckin' and a-staelin'
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

Tried Piggy Pelosi
Tried Biggy Hillary
Tried Smartie Plame
But I knew they wouldn't blow
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Away Iran

Take my loaded hand gernades
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Away Iran

(Let's try it once more.)
(One more time. More artistic flavor.)

One more time
You got me wreckin' and a-Isrealin'
Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Away Iran

Woah
You got me wreckkin'
You got me steallin'
Oh, Bomb ragheads of Iran
(Thank you very much, folks.)
(Thanks, Dean.)
(Yea {:-(

I watched this yesterday and while Muravchik might be a 'prolific' writer he was totally unprepared. He couldn't make the argument about why it was imperative we bomb Iran, just that we needed to do it now. Walsh made a good point about Iran being a disaster to occupy militarily, but that's a bit of a leap. If Iraq taught us anything all we want to do is conduct an air campaign (think Desert Storm without the land invasion, but with three to four times the number of aircraft and much more in the way of precision munitions). For all its bluster Iran has limited offensive capabilities (yeah I read where they are going to launch 10,000 missiles at once, but do they have 10,000 launchers? NO. Heard the same thing from Syria). Its Air Force is more of an Air Farce. Its fleet of high speed boats is a threat but they can be taken out, especially if we initiate the war and destroy them before they have time to disperse.

We already know the country exports oil but is dependent on imported oil as it lacks refinery capability.

Matthews did a good job, but where I wished he had probed deeper is Muravchik's religious beliefs. He's an adviser to the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs. Once again, the impression we have is of the omnipotent Israel first lobby dictating American foreign policy.
Is his zeal based on Iran's threat to the security of the United States or to Israel's?

This war of terrorists and terrorism is going way to far. Actually, let me rephrase that. War and violence suck. I can't believe this guy's response to why we should bomb Iran is because he doesn't know if they have a nuke / nuclear weapon. Because he doesn't know!!!! That is just crazy.

Karim Baz

Loonie @ 36:

Geno in Ptown @ 17:

I swear. I don't fucking understand Bush's and Heart Attack Cheney's logic. So, we have to spread democracy to the Middle East and all other dictatorships around the world. WHY!?!?!?

So by their logic, North Korea, Cuba, Communist China, and all other dictatorships are up next. Nice mentality Neo-Cons...

It's quite telling when one considers which dictatorships they choose to topple and when they choose to topple them.

Oil. I know.

I saw this segment in its entirety. Chirs Matthews did a good job just letting the neocon spew enough crap to let him hang himself ....It was smart because he couldnt talk in soundbites he had to speak about a rationale ...there was none ...

EH @ 47:

Whether Iran would sit by and not defend themselves is a dumb question that is not borne out by history at all: everybody defends themselves. The bigger question is whether Saudi Arabia would sit there and let Iran take it.

its time to shut these lets bomb iran mutha fuckers up, get the waterboards working before some deranged asshole in the whitehouse does it!

votingvet @ 46:

My thoughts are very dark and very coarse. This fool wants more carnage, does he? It's past time to let the creeps get away with calling for mass killing and to demand that they either put up or shut up. You want to bomb Iran? Fine, here's the ordinance. And here's a rifle. If you need a ride to the border, we'll get Bill Kristol to drive you there. Go, and send us a g-d-- postcard.

How many more young men and women have to die or get mutilated to satisfy the Neocons sickening need for blood and violence (perpetrated and suffered by people of classes lower than their own, of course)?

This is what I've been saying for a while. If these neocon hate warriors need a war so badly let them go fight in it. No age limit, no health requirements. Just round them all up and ship them off to where the fighting is worst. Blindfolded and bound in the back of a cargo plane if necessary. Then ship the rest of the armed forces home and leave the neocon 'guard' on their own. Best of luck. We'll drop you a care package or two after the first year if we get word you're still breathing. Hey maybe praying to your invisible sky daddy will save you. Give that a try.
See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
And the rest of us could get on with our lives.

Shadowgm @ 57:

pissed off patricia @ 39:

Forgive me if this has already been covered but from what I can gather, Stark apologized on the floor this morning.

Democrat: *anti-Bush comment*

Republican: BOOYAH! RAR! BOOOGA-BOOOGA!

Democrat: (cowers) Eeep! Please don't hit me! I'm sorry! Don't hurt me!

It's a shame, because Stark had it right.

Amen! I actually cheered when I saw that video on the tv. He does not have to apologize at all.

Good point. And remember, the Saudis are just financing the Sunni insurgent attacks, they're actually carrying them out. Just last July the Pentagon finally admitted that a majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq (including Iraqis) are Saudi nationals.

For more on what our "friends and allies" have been up to, check out:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

The Iranian nuclear program is a genuine problem. But banging the war drums against Iran is truly absurd and asinine so long as Saudi fanatics are attacking and murdering Americans left and right - and, thanks to George W. Bush, doing so with impunity.

I got a kick out of Matthews' pause at the end:

"A very seasoned debate by two... experts."

There was an audible intake of breath in that pause. He could almost have added - "And I use the term loosely."

War with Iran will be another pretext to clamp down on American citizens.

Why does USA not just bomb the rest of the world and be finished with it? That would be safe enough.

Blody paranoia...

ysbaddaden @ 63:

This is boosh's legacy. Since the beginning of our country we've never fought more than one war at a time, although some had multiple fronts. reichwingers have been claiming for years that we need to fund the military so that they are capable of fighting three wars at once.

So now we have Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (and hid).

This from an Administration where the Vice President and former SecDef under Poppy Bush went about closing bases like mad.

JackMormon @ 69:

Nancy, remind me again why impeachment is off the table.

Queen Nancy is entertaining male company on it.

JackMormon @ 69:

Did you use to be a Mormon?

Back when I was we used the term Jack Mormon for one who was in name only, but no longer active. Sometimes it was used against people who might shack up or break the Word of Wisdom.

I LOVED the very last second of the clip when Matthews hesitated as he said "two....experts"

Dr. Who @ 51: How exactly would we get back onto the gold standard with a currency which is currently worthless. I am tired of Ron Paul and his penchant to talk about economic policy when he knows jack squat other than the few key words that are constantly spewed at Libertarian meet ups. So how exactly are we going to purchase the gold needed to back up our currency if we return to the gold standard... and does it ever happened to the Paulettes to think that the current supply of gold can only cover a few orders of magnitude less money than what most economies are currently worth?

Our house is crumbling, and Mr. Paul's solution is to fit back into a matchbox. So how exactly do you fit a family of 4 into a matchbox.

Why does no body ask Mr. Paul actual questions to dismantle his Libertarian economic babble? Which by the way it is the same line of economic thought that got us in this mess to begin with. It takes a special set of balls for an idiot like Ron Paul to even open his mouth when part of the reason why we are in this mess is the libertarian bullshit running wild since Reaganomics took over in the 80s. And now he wants to bring back the gold standard, how cute...

Enough!

While I'm not convinced that gold-backed money is the solution, for the reasons that you allude to, the reason we are in this "mess" is because our money supply is based on debt. At least Paul is willing to address this "root" issue. Where are all of the other candidates on this critical issue?

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent upon its favors that there will be no opposition from that class while, on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending…will bear its burdens without complaint."
--A private communication dated June 25, 1863, from a Rothschild investment house in London to an associate banking firm in New York regarding The National Banking Act of 1863-64

The fact is that 99% of people are entirely ignorant of how our money comes into existence. That goes for posters here (who dismiss those who call the Federal Reserve system for what it is --fraud--and propose reforming our system of money and credit "looney") as well as those in congress. It's the current system of money and credit that is lunacy, and you aren't going to fix anything in this country until you address it

What people don't understand is that under our current "central banking" system of money and credit, tangible currency (coins and dollar bills) makes up less than three percent of the U.S. money supply. The other ~97 percent of the money supply exists as electronic digits and was created by a private monopoly of bankers in the form of loans. This "money" is literally created out of thin air by this private banking cartel, and then loaned, with interest, to U.S. citizens. Nice work if you can get it. This bankers' scam is one of the primary reasons why the U.S. federal debt has not been paid off since the days of Andrew Jackson, and the principal portion of the debt has continued to grow year after year.

By design, the federal debt can't ever be paid off and must continue to grow along with the issuance of new money. As for the interest on this debt, the U.S. federal income tax was instituted specifically to force U.S. taxpayers, at gunpoint, to pay this cartel of moneylenders the interest due on the "money" they manufactured out of thin air.

People were not always so ignorant when it comes to who has the power over their money supply. In fact, the American Revolution was primarily fought over this issue.

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."
--Ben Franklin

As far as gold-backed money though, it was the scarcity of precious metal coins in Europe that spawned the fraud of fractional reserve banking in the first place, and it was the same that caused the American colonists to turn to fiat paper money. This is another discussion though. Regardless, debt-based money and fractional reserve banking need to be done away with. Perhaps when enough of the sheeple realize this we can have a national discussion on monetary and banking reform.

Reich-wing "logic": If you fail the first and second time at "war", third time MUST be a charm.

Wondering @ 53:

Without an imminent threat, combat forces cannot be lawfully used.

It makes no difference there is no accountability in the US any more Bush can do it if he wants, fake the intel, a few more false flag ops, and in they go.

Iran's nuclear program was started in the 50s with help from the US anyway, the CIA deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and brought Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The US has been F'ing the place over for years for it's own interests, of course Iran is going to be pissed. The US only started barking this BS dogma when they weren't in their pocket any more.

L.A. Confidential @ 42:
I'm feeling shitty and cynical enough that I half hope that they do start a war with Iran. Only because MAYBE ... MAYBE Americans will turn off American Idol and take this country back.

Unfortunately there is nothing that will make the US people open their eyes, ask questions, move for change or peace (all at once), it's not the american way.

Anyway the coup is over, the country is lost and being run for the benifit of the view, go back to sleep and pay your taxes !

eo @ 75:

ysbaddaden @ 63:

This is boosh's legacy. Since the beginning of our country we've never fought more than one war at a time, although some had multiple fronts. reichwingers have been claiming for years that we need to fund the military so that they are capable of fighting three wars at once.

So now we have Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (and hid).

If only, say Canada is to invade Seattle, Washington, and say, Mexico to take back New Mexico, and Louisiana, and say Japan to invade Hawaii and claim it as their territories.

Bush would probably say OK to those invasion, after all they are not Red territories anyway. Beside there are no oil in those states. It's a different story if Russia is to invade Alaska.

We don't have any defense left. Any bold country could just invade us, and we do not have anything left to defend against them. They are all in Iraq, Afghan and soon to be Iran and Syria theater.

Huh, a lot of the Oil produced in the United States comse from the Gulf states, esp. Louisiana. In fact most revenues of Louisiana come from off shore drilling in the gulf. There is also plenty of oil sites in New Mexico. Plus Washington has both Boeing and Microsoft. Hawaii is a crucial port for the Pacific fleet.

There is no need to invade, when this country can be bought at fire sale places. The Europeans are buying property like mad, and a significant percentage of business are now owned by foreign firms (over 35% on the average, and in some sectors as high as 70% of our business/industry is foreign owned).

It will be a fun day to see all these asshole MBA frat white boys when they find out they have to do someone else's laundry. I am looking forward to that as it will surely be a lesson in humility for some of these privileged asshats with a sense of entitlement only rivaled by their own incompetence.

With the Euro almost 60% up in value in less than half a decade, it is become a race to see who can own more US stock, properties and infrastructure for some European conglomerates. And most Americans are just unaware of it... silly buggers! Keep on watching American Idol you idiots!

Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: The incoherence of the competing rationales for war with Iran is a must read>.

Also Zakaria's latest column in Newsweek.

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler ... a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

When the relatively moderate Mohammad Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao -- who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them -- were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

AEI = Zionist Scumbags

Time to wake up USA and disinfect your country before it is too late if that is posible?

How is that dollar doing lol

Enjoy as they take you and your country into the abyss!

If these nutcases think that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by while we bomb Iran back into the stone age, it wiill be the biggest mistake they have ever made.

But, it's not going to happen. They may be crazy...but they are not stupid. This is a political ploy to try and box the Democrats in as "weak on national defense".

The GOP is staring at a TRAIN WRECK in November. They know it.

herr dubyah and these reich-wing fruitcakes have zero credibility to hawk for yet another war.

L.A. Confidential @ 35:

Israel should just tell Iran look if you guys fu*k with us we are sending EVERYTHING we got at you. Nukes, you name it. Now, do we want to talk peace? Cooperation, trade, prosperity, growth? Good. We thought so. Now, let's get started and put our peoples talents to good use and do something for the future of humanity.

Yeah but why negotiate and cooperate if you have an enormous military advantage?
Can't you just wait things out and get all that you want without compromise?
Plus what it you don't trust those guys and see any mutual benefit as a future danger?

noone special @ 95:

L.A. Confidential @ 35:

Israel should just tell Iran look if you guys fu*k with us we are sending EVERYTHING we got at you. Nukes, you name it. Now, do we want to talk peace? Cooperation, trade, prosperity, growth? Good. We thought so. Now, let's get started and put our peoples talents to good use and do something for the future of humanity.

Yeah but why negotiate and cooperate if you have an enormous military advantage?
Can't you just wait things out and get all that you want without compromise?
Plus what it you don't trust those guys and see any mutual benefit as a future danger?

You 2 act like the objective of Israel and the United States is Cooperation, trade, prosperity, and growth. After 7 years of war fever the objective of these two nations is killing innocent people by the bushel.

Tried diplomacy?

Bombing Iran is asking for it to rain down a thousand 911's.

Actually....more than asking......promising.

liberalNmoderation @ 45:

I am really getting fucking tired of these warhawks clamoring for war!!!
These assholes need to be stopped! It's gettin to the point to where I'm ready to start thinkin "by any means necesary"... surely I'm not alone...

I fully agree. I actually can't understand why the rest of the world is sitting by letting these assholes continue this destructive course. I know that to invade this country would be just as bad as what these scums are doing to others but they both leave the country often enough. Of course, I can't understand why the leaders of our country haven't removed them and their gang of criminals from office and give them rooms in their newly built detainment centers. Every member of congress who does not stand up to them and funds this war enabling them to continue the bloodbath is guilty of war crimes. They have it within their power to put an end to the bloodshed as well as this regime. Instead they argue about who has to apologize for insulting these criminals, then go back to using their rubber stamp.

Putin has stated clearly that Russia wouldn't tolerate an attack on Iran. Do these neocons want to see if he is bluffing, is that the idea?

Walsh: “…It would be extremely costly. I mean, if you liked the war in Iraq, you would love the war in Iran. Whether it’s battlefield deaths in Afghanistan or Iraq, because you know, Iran’s not gonna just going to sit there and take it; they’re going to come back after us. If we have an IED problem today, just think imagine what it’s going to be like…”

Costly? Costly!?!

This doesn't even cover it - he doesn't mention Russia , China and the rest of the middle East AND the rest of the civilized world.

It's insane - these people are clearly insane and someone has to stop them before it's too late. We'll end up bombing Iran because of a small contingent of kooks all running around like Chicken Little yelling "bomb Iran! Do it NOW! Bomb Iran!" - - all the while with one hand deep in the front of their trousers.

They're INSANE. What's Congress going to do about this?
*

'Ohhh, there's no alternative, there's no alternative ohh ohhh booga booga, the frikkin sky is fallllinnnnngg... We jus haaavve ta drop bombs again'!!!... Ahhh shut up asswhipe! This shit ain't a fucking Strangelove movie nitwit, this is the real motherfucking deal!!!! And the rest of the world??? THEY ain't on our side in this... There is zero backing, dig????

There's always alternatives... Just maybe not the kind you like dirtbag... Like what alternatives??? I dunno, maybe something like ummmm maybe .....DIPLOMACY!!!.....JD

Bomb the AEI!!!!

Chris Matthews continues to put people on like these and Ann Coulter and Tom DeLay to give them a voice , BUT where is Valerie Plame.....Tweety would'nt give her a chance and risk his standing with his right wing friends.

Nick @ 103:

Putin has stated clearly that Russia wouldn't tolerate an attack on Iran. Do these neocons want to see if he is bluffing, is that the idea?

Yeah, let's mess around with a guy who puts radioactive poison in people's food to shut them up.

AEI and Heritage have too many bedwetters to keep track of

Dr. Who @ 90:

For the government to be the sole backer of the money supply, as the Paulettes propose, we need to surrender all our wealth to basically have the benefit of using gov-backed paper money. Which to me is a fallacy, as a small gov as the libertarians propose can not back up the fiat money it prints.

This is false. The Orwellian named Federal Reserve Act (the Federal Reserve isn't federal and there are precious few actual reserves in our "fractional reserve" banking system) could be repealed by congress. The fraudulent practice of money creation by private "fractional reserve" lending could be eliminated. The Treasury could be authorized to buy back and retire all of its outstanding federal debt with new money issued by the government with the flick of a pen. Since the overall money supply would not increase, this would not be inflationary. The Treasury could be authorized by congress to issue new currency annually, limited to a sum equal to the unused productive capacity of the national labor force, in order to prevent inflation. National credit could be issued to fund programs that promote the "general welfare", and the interest paid back on these loans could be used to fund the government in lieu of an income tax. Because the issuance of new money would no longer be dependant on an ever-increasing and unpayable debt principal and interest burden, the federal debt would be kept in check.

Mr. Paul is the fire that we will get into when we try to scape the frying pan that the Bush cartel has been so far. Just because he is talking about it doesn't mean that he has a good or sensible solution. And that to me is the danger posted by a lot of the blind Paulettes out there.

This "frying pan" you speak of came about long before the Bushies came on the scene. It was created early in our history when we handed over the control of our money to a private cartel of banker scum and established a system of debt-based money. The same situation that we fought a revolution to get away from.

The centralization of government in Washington is also to blame. Lord Acton's maxim (power corrupts) still applies in the modern age. People like Jefferson understood what we seem to have forgotten: a limited federal government and a system based on state sovereignty is the primary bulwark against the inevitable tyranny of a centralized government. The notion that a bunch of corrupt little men and women in Washington should have total fascist control over every facet of the political and economic life of people living thousands of miles away is completely idiotic and has proven to be an unmitigated disaster.

Our situation is generated by the supply side Libertarian bullshit, it led to catastrophe in the 1920s, it almost sunk us in the 1980s.... and now the last thing we need is yet another Hoover. We need a working government to navigate us out of this mess... not kill it.

You are very confused. There is nothing whatsoever "libertarian" about a private banking monopoly, or the collusion of private business with government.

I am tired of republicans who run for government, fuck it all to smitterers and with a straight face blame it on government being bad for you. No, the problem is not the government, the problem is the idiots running it. Biiig difference.

The nature of government is to create problems, and then to insert itself as the "solution" to the problem, implementing a "solution" that just exasperates the problem that it was responsible for creating in the first place, and creating all sorts of new problems in the form of unintended consequences. Kind of like cancer. This is why you need a system in place to check these inherent tendencies. Just as much as you need some way of checking the tendency of private business to monopolize the market, and collude with the government into granting it special priviliges.

In any case, I am not willing to hear a libertarian fuckwit who has living off the publit tit since 1992 at least.

The notion that a politician should be ignored just because they believe in the principles that this country was founded on is idiotic.

Seele @ 100:

Iran prolly wouldn't fight back, they didn't after our attack in 1988.

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahha

biff diggerence @ 118:

Sadly, I must concur that we're witnessing the Death of Irony.

Bush-Cheney Inc.'s 21st Century Hard-On Foreign Policy is stymied by an ex-KGB.

Why should the Bush-Cheney foreign policy be any different than the foreign policy this country has been following, with the full complicity of all major political parties, since at least the Monroe Doctrine over 180 years ago (if not earlier)? It's the same policy. Just substitute Exxon for Standard Oil and Haliburton for United Fruit.

The question you should be asking yourself is what is it about humans that renders them incapable of learning history's lessons and condemns them to the hell of repeating the same stupid mistakes over and over and over and over.

Frank@121

Why should the Bush-Cheney foreign policy be any different than the foreign policy this country has been following, with the full complicity of all major political parties, since at least the Monroe Doctrine over 180 years ago (if not earlier)? It’s the same policy.

Perhaps the difference is that in this particular case, Exxon and Halliburton "acquired" the Executive Branch (the "state") outright in 2000.

Sort of an Inverted Soviet.

biff diggerence @ 123:

Frank@121

Why should the Bush-Cheney foreign policy be any different than the foreign policy this country has been following, with the full complicity of all major political parties, since at least the Monroe Doctrine over 180 years ago (if not earlier)? It’s the same policy.

Perhaps the difference is that in this particular case, Exxon and Halliburton "acquired" the Executive Branch (the "state") outright in 2000.

Sort of an Inverted Soviet.

How is that different than say all of the mischief and mayhem the U.S. has created over the decades and centuries in South and Central America on behalf of the fruit companies and banking/financial interests (Rockefeller, etc.) and their toadies in government?

Hint: there is no difference. Just wishful thinking on your part.

Frank @ 121:

biff diggerence @ 118:

Sadly, I must concur that we're witnessing the Death of Irony.

The question you should be asking yourself is what is it about humans that renders them incapable of learning history's lessons and condemns them to the hell of repeating the same stupid mistakes over and over and over and over.

Pride, ego, arrogance, hatred, fear of death, and stupidity. Those are the culprits.

So he wants Iram bombed.....well send your children if you have any and I will join too!

God forbid we should tell it like it is with respect to the Saudis.

After all, money always trumps ethics, does it not?

WTF is wrong with all the fucking gop. it's time to waterboard all the reichwingnuts.

this is supposed to be a country built on honor and truth, but the fucking
religious reich has taken everything and twisted it into some sort of evil.

there is so much hate coming from the very people who claim to be peaceful.

Has anyone noticed, that for the first time in history, they put a Dick in a bush and fucked the whole world?

Can we waterboard these neocons? - Just for mutual fun - it's not torture, ya'know...

A.John.Joe @ 137:

Can we waterboard these neocons? - Just for mutual fun - it's not torture, ya'know...

They would fold before it even began. They believe that torture works because they do not have enough courage to be honest even with themselves.

uncle wally @ 2:

yeah, sure, let's go bombing now. That preemptive strike we did in Iraq is still going on, and we all feel so much safer. By the way, who's next after Iran?

Syria did'nt you get the memo?

knud @ 5:

Walsh: “…It would be extremely costly. I mean,

I am beginning to be tired of this mentality in the US. Not even critics of the administration cares about non-us deaths. I have come to the conclusion that major parts of the US population is a lot less civilized than assumed. They simply don't care about people elsewhere.

Bingo.

There can be little if anything more corrupt than warmongers who are not warriors.

A.John.Joe @ 137:

Can we waterboard these neocons? - Just for mutual fun - it's not torture, ya'know...

ROFL!

But seriously, you wouldn't have to. These neoclowns remind me of Danny Devito's character in Taxi. There all real tough inside their safe little cage, but if you ever got hold of them, they would probably fold into the fetal position and soil themselves.

Matthews did a great job. Walsh's comments were clear and reasonable. Muravchik the neocon clown, for all his pride, had nothing. Nothing.