Posted by: yoyo52

Scarborough - 01/12/07 02:11 AM

As far as the folks on Scarborough tonight are concerned, war with Iran is already as good as under way. This is terrifying, folks.<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 02:50 AM

No sh!t. That business about the patriot missles did it for me. <br><br>This morning, I was concerned. Now I'm convinced. <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue] Talk about things and nobody cares . . .</font color=blue>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 03:19 AM

It's an excellent point about those missiles. The folks on Countdown were just as suspicious.<br><br>And you know, when those guys describe the incredible mess that will follow when we leave Iraq (cause at some point we're going to have to leave, and then the mess in Saigon is going to seem tame by contrast), and then they ask, "How can we avoid it," the answer seems to be that we cannot avoid it. And all of it, all the stinking disaster that has and will take place, is squarely at the feet of the administration and its elective war.<br><br>In the past I've said that an impeachment would harm the country too much and that we'd be better off waiting till Jan. of 2009 to get a new president. But I'm beginning to wonder whether we can afford two more years of a nut in office--and not just the presidential nut. All of 'em need to be impeached.<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 03:37 AM

Well, to be redundant ~ No sh!t. As of today, I firmly believe that Bush plans to wage war with Iran. Total insanity. I don't know that an impeachment is as appropriate as a straight jacket.<br><br>And we're not just Voices in the Lunatic Liberal Wilderness anymore. What ~ what will happen when Bush launches war against Iran? I don't think "hearings" and "committees" would be the correct response. I wonder what our Congress folks contemplate this evening, in light of last night's declarations and today's speculations?<br><br>It's not like Condi set anybody's mind at ease this morning . . <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue] Talk about things and nobody cares . . .</font color=blue>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 03:57 AM

Well what can a congressional party do other than vote not to fund something? The executive is the only arm of government that can take straightforward action, and at the moment that the action's taken, there's literally no institutional check at all on what the executive can do. Remember that the Saturday Night Massacre back in Watergate days ended up with Bork (think of him as a Supreme Court Justice ) actually doing what Nixon wanted done. The principled courage of Richardson and Ruckelshaus was great, but the executive finally executed Cox. I remember very very clearly how concerned people (me) were that Nixon would just order the army to do something radical, like occupy the houses of Congress--and if he'd ordered that to take place, other than the principled courage of some commander, there would have been no way to prevent it from taking place. Think what awesome power the commander in chief has . . . and tremble because a nut is the one who's wielding it.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 04:47 AM

Bush seems to have made the first move today: ERBIL, Iraq, Jan. 11 American troops b...matic office...<br><br>Now we wait for Iran or their agents to retaliate against US targets (maybe an embassy in Somalia???), and off we go.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 05:06 AM

As so many people today pointed out, the people who lead Iran are not stupid. They're not going to take the bait, at least not directly. But remember that Iran controls Hezbollah--so suppose that suddenly Lebanon blows up again and the region gets destabilized more than it already is?<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 05:13 AM

An explosion has been heard in the US embassy compound in the Greek capital, Athens, reports say...<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 11:30 AM

Can we at least hold them for 444 days? <br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 11:42 AM

So you find Iran's supplying terrorists with advanced IED's to kill Americans in Iraq acceptable? <br>Regardless of the reasons as to why we are there, the fact remains that if we leave now or without some semblance of stabilizing Iraq, the humanitarian crisis that will ensue will make Darfur look like a Sunday picnic. <br>Further, the vacuum that will be created in Iraq by a hasty exit will be filled by energized Islamic extremists, aka Iranian backed wackos. They will be a threat to the Saudi's, Egyptions, Jordanians, etc. And in ten years we will be back in there having to deal with an even bigger problem. Until the Iranian influence is checked, and it currently is, problems in the Middle East will continue. The only long term solution is regime change in Iran.<br><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 11:53 AM

The reason Iraq is destabilized is we destabalized it! The reason the region is so hosed, is because we made it that way. Expanding it to other countries is insane! [smacks your head!] Yeesh! <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 12:03 PM

Unless there's such a thing as Instant Impeachment pour contents into a bowl and just add hot water I fear that even that might now be too little too late. The zune is piling up faster than we can shovel. And now I have to wonder tin foil hat planted squarely on mi cabazza is the troop increase in Iraq really just the tip of a spear ultimately aimed at Iran?<br><br>I see a belligerent, dishonest brat who has spilled red paint on the white living room carpet. And instead of fessing up, is now gonna paint the whole thing red to hide his mistake.<br><br>I had to forgo the Olberman/Scarborough tag team last night to meet a deadline. In a twisted way, I'm glad I did because I actually slept when I finally hit the sheets. <br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 12:09 PM

No question that Iran is a trouble maker. Syria, too. Also no question that a smart, intense diplomatic attempt should be exhausted before shells are lobbed. It may be that negotiations would not yield positive results. But sabre-rattling and open antagonism and obstinate refusal to try diplomacy ain't the "way forward".<br><br>Bush (and homies) = Way Backward.<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 12:09 PM

No. The region became dysfunctional with the fall of the Shah and the acsent of radical Islam in Iran. Unfortunatly our President at the time chose to do nothing when our people were held hostage. We looked weak and ineffectual, which we were. This wimpy posture emboldend the radical segment of Islam. Giving us the problems that the current administration must deal with today. <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 12:15 PM

You were saying...?<br><br>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 01:04 PM

"We looked weak and ineffectual, which we were. This wimpy posture emboldend the radical segment of Islam." <br><br>The same could be said of Reagan's withdrawal of our troops following the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. To lay our current situation solely at Jimmy Carter's feet is unfair and inaccurate, IMO. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 01:16 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>No. The region became dysfunctional with the fall of the Shah and the acsent of radical Islam in Iran. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Good grief you have to select the booting of our puppet leader out of Iran to shift the blame to a Democrat president? Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, HWBush and Clinton all understood the one thousand year old intricacies of what is in play in the middle east. With the oil there we had to make deals with devils. The Shah and Saddam were two of many. But the tension between the countries painted on the desert by the Brits with the overlying religious fueds were all balanced. <br><br>Then this administration invades and removes the key piece and everything the terrorists ever wanted and everything that Iran fundamentalists ever wanted is now coming true.<br><br>Blaming Carter! Why don't you blame Winston Churchill because it would make more sense.<br>Carter made us look ineffectual? And Bush's actions the past four years has made us look what? Like As[/i]s Clowns? <br><br>That is a great strategy I guess. If I was Iran or Syria I would be worried. A country that has enough nuclear weapons that could vaporize the entire earth is ruled by As[i]s Clowns with SUVs with empty gas tanks. I would be worried too if I had oil under my desert.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 05:31 PM

Thanks for the winky. Otherwise I'd swear you meant that I'm all for American soldiers being killed. <br><br>To the meat of your post: You want me to belive that Shiite Iran is supplying Sunni insurgents, including all the Sunni al-Qaeda terrorists you want to throw into the pot, with weapons that are aimed at killing not only Americans but also Iraqi Shiites?<br><br>Talk about reality distortion fields!<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 10:25 PM

I meant no offense. The winky should have been bigger. <br><br>But of course the Persians are not supplying the Sunni's. The Saudi's are. As are the left over Baathists and Saddam loyalists. They have all those hidden stockpiles of WMD's to draw from. <br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Scarborough - 01/12/07 10:35 PM

"The winky should have been bigger. "<br><br>Geez, where have I heard that before!<br><br>