Time to strike up the War Paranoia. Target: Iran

[Winnow]

The U.S. has three full carrier groups sitting off the coast of Iran.

I said a long time ago on this forum (will find the post if you want!) that the U.S. wasn't going to exit Iraq until they made sure Iran couldn't just roll in and take the country over. I'm not a warmonger, but if it's going to happen, a quick three day massive strike is much better than any kind of ground campaign or lengthy air campaign. Get it over with, and then start pulling out troops from Iraq, set up some defensive help for Israel, and then concentrate on defending the home front. I don't want war with Iran and know the general young populace, that hasn't been brainwashed, would like to be more friendly with the west. I do see the need to make sure Iran's military is beat down though. There's no way you can leave a battered Iraq with Iran sitting next door at "full strength". They need to be on a more equal playing field so their eternal war can continue.

Look for maybe a staged terrorist event around the 911 anniversary to kick things off perhaps? The only country that will be liking the U.S. after this will be Israel.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 369001.ece

From The Sunday Times
September 2, 2007
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said – to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months – “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Acies]

You really have no clue what living in Iran is like.

It is not a third world country. It is an emerging democracy. Women are not stoned to death in the street for showing hair or thier face below the nose. They have coke, ski-resorts (yes, you fucking snowboarders are there too), abortion clinics, movie theatres, computers, sky scrapers, police, a parliment governing body. It is not a "hotbed" for terrorism. In fact, I would say the number of bomb wielding radicals in Iran (and no, not because they are all in Iraq) is about what you would find here in the states.

They are just a fledgling country where freedom, choice and democracy is naturally occuring. Their military is a joke next to ours, and I highly doubt that Isreal has much to worry about from Iran as long as they stop totting the "fuck you Arabs" line. Even if they don't stop, I doubt Iran will do much but sanction them (god forbid!). There really is no logical reason to attack them. In fact, considering how many non-combantant civillians have died at the hands of U.S. soldiers, we sort of beat out terrorists in the terror racket, by far surpassing the death toll of 9-11.

No, we do not need to beat them or their small military down. We need to treat them with a little respect for once and view them as a country of like-minded people, and not a backwater infection of terrorism brewing on the land which is literally on the other side of the damned planet.

[Winnow]

You really have no clue what living in Iran is like.

Have you been to Iran?

The closest thing I've found to get a glimpse of what the current conditions there is through Ted Koppels Discovery series on Iran:

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/ko ... eople.html

Check out the first video clip that interviews some Iranian teenagers and you'll see clearly that with a change in leadership, the Iranian people would get along swell with the U.S. on the whole:

http://dsc.discovery.com/beyond/index.h ... =302033983

Despite the "Life Inside the Axis of Evil" title, it's a pretty open look at life inside Iran. As with any country led by strict censorship, (N Korea, China, etc), the general population seems to mostly go along with what the government wishes to keep themselves out of trouble. Those aren't the people making decisions for the country though. As looney as Bush is, I'm pretty sure he understand or has been told that the people of Iran aren't evil by default. Everyone might hope for a slow transition to a more democratic state in Iran but it's not that easy and I don't see a revolution happening anytime soon. With the fanatics in charge, the next best thing is taking out military targets and future nuclear threats, hopefully accidentally targeting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the process to cause a little more turmoil. (a 27 year delayed make up for his involvement in the U.S. Hostage crisis)

On a related note, I just finished reading an account of a westerner's visit to North Korea:

http://www.1stopkorea.com/index.htm?nk- ... ~mainframe

Check it out. It's good stuff. Stick with it. The page formatting isn't the best but the images and story improve a few pages in.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

I have friends with relatives in Iran that go from time to time. They say its not bad over there, their families are pretty well off...supposedly its a lot like it is over here. Then again its not like we are free anyway.

[Funkmasterr]

My cousin has been in the navy for like 6 years now, and he has been telling me the whole time he has been in that the majority of their (meaning our naval fleet overall) time is spent off the coasts of either Korea, Iraq or Iran - so I'm not remotely surprised.

[Wulfran]

It is not a third world country. It is an emerging democracy.

Its not an emerging democracy: the elected aspect of their gov't is screened in terms of who is allowed to run, and after the ruling council of mullahs dictate policy. Their elections aren't much more real than those of Saddam Hussein or the old Soviet block. The economy is "emerging" and there is a large, well educated ex-pat population that are living in the West, being more assimilated into our culture(s) and some of them return, spreading the cultural influence but you seem to trying to convince yourself that because you hate Bush and Bush hates Iran, that Iran's leaders are all good and nice: they're not.

An example that comes to mind is the Kazemi case: she held Iranian and Canadian passports, lived in Montreal and was a photo-journalist who returned to Iran to do a story (I think it was a retrospective on life after the Islamic revolution). She was detained by police and died in custody. A western autopsy was not performed because she was a woman and the Iranians refused her son's requests to return the body to Canada for burial. A doctor who supposedly treated her before she died said he saw evidence of severe beatings but he was limited in the treatment he was allowed to give her (he now lives in the West, not sure where). The details are hazy and shit does happen to people in police custody here too, but stories like that of this woman are not isolated.

Couple the human rights violations with the rhetoric coming from Iranian politicians and the fact that Amadenijad (sp) has sponsored anti-semetic "research" symposia on the holocaust, the fact that Iran as a nation refuses to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist* and their other nationalistic aims (they have been sending agents into Iraq and weren't exactly on the best of terms with Saddam Hussein prior to the US Invasion) and I don't think it is a stretch to imagine a nuclear armed Iran flexing its muscles to try and resurrect the old Persian empire. And although they may not be as well armed and trained as the US, Israel or most of their allies, that doesn't mean they are powerless and incapable of doing tremendous damage to their neighbours, including Israel, should they go on the warpath. History is filled with examples of superior armed and trained troops being defeated or having heavy casualties inflicted on them by lower tech, more numerous adversaries, from the days of the Romans and earlier, to Vietnam.

All this doesn't mean I support military intervention against them but prudence dictates that you be prepared for possibilities/contingencies and not be blind to existing or changing realities. That should be a lesson everyone has learned from the way the Bush admin has mishandled Iraq. Hopefully diplomacy and economic incentives/pressure can defuse some of the tension but only time will tell.

*and please don't mistake me for being pro-Israeli: I think they have done some really shitty things to continue engendering the hostility they do amongst the Arabs as well as being on the receiving end

[Fash]

what a shitty source... some guy from a think-tank speaking out of his ass at a 'conservative' event, and now it's in the media broadcast to the world.

who exactly is ramping up the paranoia?

my vote is not on the guy, the think-tank, nor the event... but the media for using it as a source for sensationalist journalism.

I'd bet this guy has no more knowledge of what the pentagon is planning than you or i... mostly because they wouldn't want it known.

[Winnow]

More views from Iran, for those interested:

http://www.slate.com/id/2173107/pagenum/all/

When Bush Comes to Iran
The view of American tough talk from Tehran.
By Reza Aslan
Posted Monday, Sept. 3, 2007, at 8:02 AM ET

My cousin Kamran is a successful software engineer in Tehran with a house, a thriving business of his own, and a brand new Peugeot, which he likes to show off by careening through the city's clogged streets at maniacal speeds. Like most of Iran's young and highly educated population, he must rely on other means to make ends meet. So, in addition to running his software business, Kamran tutors neighborhood children, raises chickens on his aunt's farm, hires himself out as a guide and translator for tourists, dabbles in real estate, and occasionally sells imitation designer handbags out of the trunk of his car.

"What kind of life is this?" he confides in me. "I have a master's degree. I fought in the Iran-Iraq war. I have my own business. But here I am forced to sell purses out of my car to feed my family?" He laughs to hide his shame. "I tell you, when Bush comes, things will be different."

When Bush comes. It is a popular joke in Tehran, akin to saying, "when pigs fly." Of course, behind every joke lurks a genuine sentiment. Sure, Kamran laughs when he says it. But then he grips the wheel and, for a brief moment, glances up at the sky, as though expecting an American fighter jet to zoom overhead.

I can't blame him. There is a palpable sense among many Iranians that the United States might start dropping bombs on them at any moment. After all, Iran is literally surrounded by American troops: The U.S. maintains military bases in Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. A fleet of heavily armed American warships is conducting military exercises in the Persian Gulf. The CIA just received a presidential directive to launch black-ops meant to destabilize the Iranian government. The Bush administration might well be believed to be considering launching its own nuclear weapons (so-called bunker busters like the B61-11) against Iran's suspected nuclear sites. And Congress has approved another $75 million to "promote democracy" in Iran, which means, unapologetically, regime change.

All of this makes Kamran chuckle. "Regime change. Regime change," he mocks in an American accent. It's not that he doesn't want an end to the clerical regime. He'd love nothing more than to drag the mullahs out of the halls of government. But he has stopped caring. Like the rest of his friends, Kamran has grown so disenchanted with Iran's political system and so suspicious of American intentions in the wake of the Iraq war that he has simply given up. He doesn't vote in Iranian elections anymore. He barely reads the newspapers. He's stopped watching CNN International and the BBC. He has more immediate concerns, like how to pay his mortgage, how to afford skyrocketing gas prices, what to do about the impoverished Iraqis flooding into the country, and, most of all, how to use his immense computer expertise to make a decent living. The only time he pays any attention to the news is when the Iranian press announces yet another impending threat from America.

Those stories are popping up a lot lately. In the past couple of weeks, President Bush has raised the rhetorical stakes again, first by threatening to label Iran's military/intelligence branch, the Revolutionary Guard, a terrorist organization (essentially a declaration of war in the age of the "War on Terror"), then by announcing in a fiery speech before the American Legion that he is authorizing U.S. forces in Iraq "to confront Tehran's murderous activities." Both moves come after months of accusations that Iran is arming and training Shiite militias who are killing both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

The accusations of Iran's meddling in Iraq are no doubt true. But consider this: According to a report released by the New York Times, of the 60 to 80 fighters who enter Iraq each month to join al Qaida in Mesopotamia, half are from Saudi Arabia. The majority of suicide bombers are Saudis, as are about 45 percent of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. And nearly half of the foreign prisoners in U.S. custody in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. Yet, far from threatening to confront Saudi Arabia's murderous activities, Bush has just offered to supply billions of dollars in advanced weaponry to that country. Why? According to State and Defense department officials, to help ward off Iranian influence.

No wonder Kamran is so paranoid about an impending U.S. invasion. He's not alone. For all its blustering confidence, the Iranian government is convinced it is next for the "Axis of Evil." And Iran has learned the obvious lesson from its fellow Axis members. The country without nuclear weapons (Iraq) was attacked and occupied by U.S. forces. The country with nuclear weapons (North Korea) is being plied with hundreds of millions of dollars to give them up. It's not hard to figure out why Iran is so frantic to develop nuclear capabilities. In fact, almost everything the Iranian regime does—from accelerating its nuclear program to arming Shiite militias in Iraq to crushing opposition movements at home—must be viewed from the prism of the overpowering fear of a coming military attack.

Perhaps no event is more indicative of the regime's paranoia than its detainment of four Iranian-Americans, including Haleh Esfandiari of the Woodrow Wilson Center on International Policy, on charges of spying for the United States. (Esfandiari, who was specifically accused of trying to start a velvet revolution in Iran, was finally released on bail last week.) The charges are absurd, of course. But the Iranian government's actions cannot be isolated from the announcement made by the CIA in May that the United States is actively recruiting Iranian-Americans who, in the words of one intelligence officer, "have links with their families at home," and who could be "a good two-way source of information." Kamran shakes his head when I tell him this. "How did you think the mullahs were going to react to that?" he asks.

It's true that President Bush has made a concerted effort to temper his administration's saber rattling with direct appeals to the Iranian people. "My message to the Iranian people is: You can do better than this current government," Bush said last week. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

But such statements enrage Kamran and the rest of Tehran's young and struggling middle class even more than the threats of military attack. It's not so much the fact that not a penny of the $75 million for "democracy" has been accepted by any organization inside Iran. It is that Bush's comments only exacerbate the paranoia of the Iranian government, resulting in further suppression of dissent, greater international isolation, and less opportunity for Iranians like Kamran to achieve their "full economic potential."

That explains why Iran's most prominent advocates of democracy have repeatedly asked the president to stop reaching out to them. Noble Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who is also Esfandiari's lawyer, has argued that Washington's policy of "helping" the cause of democracy in Iran "has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West."

On my last visit to Tehran I asked Kamran what the United States could do to foster democratic reform in Iran. "Just leave us alone," he said wearily.

Then, after a beat, "And please, no bombs."

[Zaelath]

Interesting article. Are you trying to beat the drum cause you bought shares in gas masks, or hoping you can avoid another conflict?

[Winnow]

It's getting closer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st ... e_continue

Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?


Mystery surrounds last week's air foray into Syrian territory. The Observer's Foreign Affairs Editor attempts to unravel the truth behind Operation Orchard and allegations of nuclear subterfuge

Peter Beaumont
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer

The head of Israel's airforce, Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, was visiting a base in the coastal city of Herziliya last week. For the 50-year-old general, also the head of Israel's Iran Command, which would fight a war with Tehran if ordered, it was a morale-boosting affair, a meet-and-greet with pilots and navigators who had flown during last summer's month-long war against Lebanon. The journalists who had turned out in large numbers were there for another reason: to question Shkedi about a mysterious air raid that happened this month, codenamed 'Orchard', carried out deep in Syrian territory by his pilots.

Shkedi ignored all questions. It set a pattern for the days to follow as he and Israel's politicians and officials maintained a steely silence, even when the questions came from the visiting French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner. Those journalists who thought of reporting the story were discouraged by the threat of Israel's military censor.

But the rumours were in circulation, not just in Israel but in Washington and elsewhere. In the days that followed, the sketchy details of the raid were accompanied by contradictory claims even as US and British officials admitted knowledge of the raid. The New York Times described the target of the raid as a nuclear site being run in collaboration with North Korean technicians. Others reported that the jets had hit either a Hizbollah convoy, a missile facility or a terrorist camp.

Amid the confusion there were troubling details that chimed uncomfortably with the known facts. Two detachable tanks from an Israeli fighter were found just over the Turkish border. According to Turkish military sources, they belonged to a Raam F15I - the newest generation of Israeli long-range bomber, which has a combat range of over 2,000km when equipped with the drop tanks. This would enable them to reach targets in Iran, leading to speculation that it was an 'operation rehearsal' for a raid on Tehran's nuclear facilities.

Finally, however, at the week's end, the first few tangible details were beginning to emerge about Operation Orchard from a source involved in the Israeli operation.

They were sketchy, but one thing was absolutely clear. Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.

What was becoming clear by this weekend amid much scepticism, largely from sources connected with the administration of President George Bush, was the nature of the allegation, if not the facts.

In a series of piecemeal leaks from US officials that gave the impression of being co-ordinated, a narrative was laid out that combined nuclear skulduggery and the surviving members of the 'axis of evil': Iran, North Korea and Syria.

It also combined a series of neoconservative foreign policy concerns: that North Korea was not being properly monitored in the deal struck for its nuclear disarmament and was off-loading its material to Iran and Syria, both of which in turn were helping to rearm Hizbollah.

Underlying all the accusations was a suggestion that recalled the bogus intelligence claims that led to the war against Iraq: that the three countries might be collaborating to supply an unconventional weapon to Hizbollah.

It is not only the raid that is odd but also, ironically, the deliberate air of mystery surrounding it, given Israel's past history of bragging about similar raids, including an attack on an Iraqi reactor. It was a secrecy so tight, in fact, that even as the Israeli aircrew climbed into the cockpits of their planes they were not told the nature of the target they were being ordered to attack.

According to an intelligence expert quoted in the Washington Post who spoke to aircrew involved in the raid, the target of the attack, revealed only to the pilots while they were in the air, was a northern Syrian facility that was labelled as an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river, close to the Turkish border.

According to this version of events, a North Korean ship, officially carrying a cargo of cement, docked three days before the raid in the Syrian port of Tartus. That ship was also alleged to be carrying nuclear equipment.

It is an angle that has been pushed hardest by the neoconservative hawk and former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. But others have entered the fray, among them the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who, without mentioning Syria by name, suggested to Fox television that the raid was linked to stopping unconventional weapons proliferation.

Most explicit of all was Andrew Semmel, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for nuclear non-proliferation policy, who, speaking in Rome yesterday, insisted that 'North Koreans were in Syria' and that Damascus may have had contacts with 'secret suppliers' to obtain nuclear equipment.

'There are indicators that they do have something going on there,' he said. 'We do know that there are a number of foreign technicians that have been in Syria. We do know that there may have been contact between Syria and some secret suppliers for nuclear equipment. Whether anything transpired remains to be seen.

'So good foreign policy, good national security policy, would suggest that we pay very close attention to that,' he said. 'We're watching very closely. Obviously, the Israelis were watching very closely.'

But despite the heavy inference, no official so far has offered an outright accusation. Instead they have hedged their claims in ifs and buts, assiduously avoiding the term 'weapons of mass destruction'.

There has also been deep scepticism about the claims from other officials and former officials familiar with both Syria and North Korea. They have pointed out that an almost bankrupt Syria has neither the economic nor the industrial base to support the kind of nuclear programme described, adding that Syria has long rejected going down the nuclear route.

Others have pointed out that North Korea and Syria in any case have also had a long history of close links - making meaningless the claim that the North Koreans are in Syria.

The scepticism was reflected by Bruce Reidel, a former intelligence official at the Brookings Institution's Saban Centre, quoted in the Post. 'It was a substantial Israeli operation, but I can't get a good fix on whether the target was a nuclear thing,' adding that there was 'a great deal of scepticism that there's any nuclear angle here' and instead the facility could have been related to chemical or biological weapons.

The opaqueness surrounding the nature of what may have been hit in Operation Orchard has been compounded by claims that US knowledge over the alleged 'agricultural site' has come not from its own intelligence and satellite imaging, but from material supplied to Washington from Tel Aviv over the last six months, material that has been restricted to just a few senior officials under the instructions of national security adviser Stephen Hadley, leaving many in the intelligence community uncertain of its veracity.

Whatever the truth of the allegations against Syria - and Israel has a long history of employing complex deceptions in its operations - the message being delivered from Tel Aviv is clear: if Syria's ally, Iran, comes close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, and the world fails to prevent it, either through diplomatic or military means, then Israel will stop it on its own.

So Operation Orchard can be seen as a dry run, a raid using the same heavily modified long-range aircraft, procured specifically from the US with Iran's nuclear sites in mind. It reminds both Iran and Syria of the supremacy of its aircraft and appears to be designed to deter Syria from getting involved in the event of a raid on Iran - a reminder, if it were required, that if Israel's ground forces were humiliated in the second Lebanese war its airforce remains potent, powerful and unchallenged.

And, critically, the raid on Syria has come as speculation about a war against Iran has begun to re-emerge after a relatively quiet summer.

With the US keen to push for a third UN Security Council resolution authorising a further tranche of sanctions against Iran, both London and Washington have increased the heat by alleging that they are already fighting 'a proxy war' with Tehran in Iraq.

Perhaps more worrying are the well-sourced claims from conservative thinktanks in the US that there have been 'instructions' by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney to roll out support for a war against Iran.

In the end there is no mystery. Only a frightening reminder. In a world of proxy threats and proxy actions, the threat of military action against Iran has far from disappeared from the agenda.

[Siji]

He's a war president sent by God to cleanse the sand niggas.

[Winnow]

American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane.

NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books ... wanted=all

[Xouqoa]

Saw this posted today: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/bre ... nt-passes/

By a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”

[Fash]

This congress sure is fighting the president, amirite? This surely will raise their poll numbers.

I read the PDF and I'm kinda surprised it got that much support... I mean, I agree that Iran is trying to fuck us bareback in Iraq, I just assumed the Dem majority wouldn't want anything to do with paving the road to war.

[Boogahz]

This congress sure is fighting the president, amirite? This surely will raise their poll numbers.

I read the PDF and I'm kinda surprised it got that much support... I mean, I agree that Iran is trying to fuck us bareback in Iraq, I just assumed the Dem majority wouldn't want anything to do with paving the road to war.

I am sure they were mislead into believing it was the right thing to do.

[Winnow]

This congress sure is fighting the president, amirite? This surely will raise their poll numbers.

I read the PDF and I'm kinda surprised it got that much support... I mean, I agree that Iran is trying to fuck us bareback in Iraq, I just assumed the Dem majority wouldn't want anything to do with paving the road to war.

I am sure they were mislead into believing it was the right thing to do.

no pun intended?

[Nick]

This congress sure is fighting the president, amirite? This surely will raise their poll numbers.

Too true.