BUSH: TAKE OFF EVERY 'ZIG'!!
Posted on 03/05/2006 1:15:08 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
1. Khamenei: Iran Will Have Bomb in April
April 8, 2006 could turn out to be an ominous date in history - that's the day Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei says that Iran will have a nuclear weapon.
Late last year Khamenei gathered his top advisers for a strategy meeting and told them "it has been promised that by April 8, we will be in a position to show the entire world that we are members of the club."
This presumably refers to nuclear weapons, according to National Review Online Contributing Editor Michael Ledeen, who offered an inside look at the top-level meeting.
Among the assessments by Iran's leaders:
The U.S. is seriously divided and President Bush is paralyzed, unable to make any tough decisions - and therefore unable to order an attack against Iran. Israel is also divided. Netanyahu has opposed Sharon (the meeting took place before Sharon's stroke) and no strong government is possible, so Israel too is unable to order an attack against Iran.
Since the mullahs are confident that Iran will soon acquire nuclear weapons, there is no longer any need to play stalling games with the West.
But if the Iranian leadership has come to believe it has little to fear from the West, there are clear signs of trouble within the regime, Ledeen reports.
Khamenei is said to be fighting a losing battle with cancer, and a succession struggle is already underway. The government has stepped up repression of groups suspected of opposing the regime, and President Ahmadinejad recently canceled most foreign travel by government officials, which is "not the sign of a confident mullahcracy," Ledeen writes.
What's more, the Iranians may be misreading the U.S., says Ledeen. He writes that the perceived "paralysis" of America is "nothing more than a replay of the usual blunder committed by our enemies, who look at us and see fractious politics," only to learn that "free societies are quite capable of turning on a dime and defending their interests and values with unanticipated ferocity."
2. Reagan Library Nixes Ollie North Appearance
The rift between Nancy Reagan and Oliver North continues.
The retired Marine colonel and star of Fox News Channel's "War Stories" was set to be the guest speaker at a planned March 25 dinner for the Pacific Legal Foundation, to be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.
But when Library execs got word that North was coming, they told the Foundation to drop him or find another venue.
The hostility between Mrs. Reagan and North goes back to the Ronald Reagan presidency and the embarrassing Iran-Contra affair.
North coordinated the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to fund the Contra rebels fighting to topple the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Reagan denied he knew about the deal and he fired North in 1986. Still, North was hailed as a hero by conservatives for keeping the Contras' struggle alive - one that eventually led to Nicaragua holding free elections.
North later wrote a book, "Under Fire: An American Story," in which he claimed that Reagan must have known about the deal. Sources says Mrs. Reagan was incensed by the claim.
When North ran for the Senate from Virginia in 1994, she told a reporter on the eve of the election that North had lied to her husband about the Iran-Contra affair. North lost the election.
According to Dick Bradley, a spokesman for the Pacific Legal Foundation, Reagan Library officials told the Foundation that Col. North was simply not welcome at the Library.
Bradley said former Reagan speechwriter Peter M. Robinson - who wrote the famous speech in which President Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this [Berlin] wall" - is the new speaker, replacing North.
A Library official, Robert Cuillard, flatly denied that Col. North was barred from appearing at the dinner, and referred us to a Library public relations spokeswoman, Melissa Geller, who we were unable to reach.
Col. North was not available for comment.
3. Daschle's Wife Opposes His '08 Run
Former Sen. Tom Daschle is said to be mulling a run for the White House in 2008, but his wife is reportedly dead-set against the idea.
A longtime friend of the South Dakota Democrat told Roll Call's "Heard on the Hill" column that Daschle is "thinking about" launching a presidential campaign.
But another friend said his powerhouse lobbyist wife Linda is "steadfastly opposed" to her husband running, although the friend believes the former Senate Minority and Majority Leader will run anyway.
Both friends said they thought Linda Daschle would be loath to give up her successful lobbying job and "slog through an uphill battle of a presidential primary with her husband," the Roll Call column disclosed.
Daschle's longtime political advisor Steve Hildebrand, however, claimed that Daschle's wife would support any decision he might make, although he added that "the chance of him running isn't even great."
Daschle first won election to the Senate in 1986 but was narrowly defeated by Republican John Thune in 2004.
4. Buckley, Fukuyama Desert Bush on Iraq
Two leading conservatives have abandoned President Bush on Iraq and called the American campaign there a failure.
Writing for National Review, conservative icon William F. Buckley said: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed ...
"Different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat."
Francis Fukuyama, a leading neoconservative theorist and author, went even further, saying Bush's broader strategy of preemptive American military interventions has been proven wrong.
"The so-called Bush Doctrine that set the framework for the administration's first term is now in shambles," Fukuyama wrote in the New York Times Magazine.
"Successful preemption depends on the ability to predict the future accurately and on good intelligence, which was not forthcoming, while America's perceived unilateralism has isolated it as never before."
In describing what become known as the "Bush Doctrine," the president in a June 1, 2002 speech asserted that the U.S. had a unilateral right to overthrow any government in the world that was deemed a threat to American security.
"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long," he declared.
Robert Parry, author of "Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq," writes on the Web site of the Consortium for Independent Journalism:
"During those heady days, Bush and his neoconservative advisers dreamed of remaking the entire Middle East with pro-U.S. leaders chosen through elections and Arab nations ending their hostility toward Israel."
Instead, surging anti-Americanism fostered by the U.S. invasion of Iraq has led to gains by Islamic extremists in elections in Egypt, Iran and Pakistan and the victory by Hamas in Palestine.
"This string of catastrophes has now led even prominent conservatives to conclude that Bush's 'stay the course' strategy must be rethought," Parry concludes.
"The latest defectors - Buckley and Fukuyama - threaten to pull away even members of Bush's political base."
5. Incumbents Could Lose Out in Next White House Race
History tells us that presidential candidates who already hold public office are more likely to win their party's nomination.
But 2008 might be different.
Leaving aside incumbent presidents, since 1956 Democrats and Republicans have nominated for president 12 individuals who held an elective office when they were chosen, while picking only five who were out of office.
But of those five, two were former vice presidents (Richard Nixon and Walter Mondale), and another was a repeat nominee (Adlai Stevenson). A fourth, Ronald Reagan, had built a national following by nearly winning the nomination during the previous presidential primary season.
"Thus the only candidate in 50 years who lacked previous national exposure, was out of office and won a presidential nomination was former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party's choice in 1976," the Los Angeles Times notes.
Nevertheless, several strategists are willing to disregard the historical trend and say that candidates without a political office actually enjoy advantages over incumbents.
And that could be a key in 2008, when as many as 11 strong out-of-office candidates could vie for their party's nomination.
"It is far better to have a candidate who is loose and not affiliated," Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 campaign, told the Times.
Brazile and other strategists say the biggest edge for out-of-office candidates is a more flexible schedule and the opportunity to spend more time in early-primary states.
Out-of-office candidates are also free to take contrary positions and stay out of the crossfire in the day-to-day political tumult.
Potential out-of-office candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008 include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and New York Gov. George Pataki - all three will leave their current positions after the November election - plus former House Speaker New Gingrich and ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The Democrats include former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack - who is not running for re-election this year - former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former Vice President Al Gore.
Im afraid it is almost too late at this point.
I guess it's time to go long on popcorn.
Nothing will be done to stop Iran from getting nukes.
Our hands are tied because of Iraq. The US can not attack Iran now as we have 125,000 soldiers as targets in Iraq. Attack Iran, and the Shia majority in Iraq will go bonkers against us.
Isreal may try to derail Iran's nuclear dreams, but they just don't have the ability to launch the kinds of sustained strikes that would be needed to eliminate Iran's program in the long term.
Europe is a joke. Iran knows the Europeans are weak and spineless.
I'm afraid the truth is that Iran will join the nuclear club just like North Korea did. Not so long ago the US was commited to preventing the North Koreans from getting nukes.....and we all know how that worked out.
The West, to include the US, is just too awash in political correctness, multicultural nonense, squeamishness at the thought of any civilian casualities on the enemy side, etc.
We will wind up getting hit again and again at home before American attitudes change. Maybe at that time, we will finally realize that it is Islam that is our enemy - not just a few radicals.
I would hope they know how to defend themselves.
BUSH: TAKE OFF EVERY 'ZIG'!!
follow-up headline
IRAN BOMBED IN APRIL
Hahahah all your base are belong to us!
Thats how many divisions that can be on the Iranian boarder in 7 days?
I may be wrong but they seem to be equipped with M1 Abram's tanks, Apache Attack Helicopters, One heck of an Air Force and about 3 years of in the trenches urban fighting experience.. Doesn't sound like a force you would want to see coming over the next hill in a big hurry if you thought they may be looking for tails to kick.
Perhaps the Rats will get their wants, the US Army and Marines heading for the Horizon.. uh.. to the West.
And lets see.. don't we like to start campaigns in March/April in that part of the world.
Iran is betting they can get a pass like North Korea did.. Cross the Nuclear finish line and you are invulnerable.
I personally believe that the bru ha ha about the UAE ports deal is a back lash about the cartoon issue.. lots of people woke up to the fact that we really really are at WAR with Islamofascists, on a global scale, with our very lives and freedom in the balance. And, they haven't found a nuanced position to make sense out of the threat that is posed verses the need to win by prolonged struggle. There is no simply walking away. The alternative in the Ports deal was Singapore.. another Islamic city state, spuds or potatoes, but no one is pointing that out.
Still this upheaval is not simply dismissed, its deeper meaning is that Americans are more than ever ready to engage in Total War. This is something that should not be approached lightly. This is a brink that Americans must resist, but it may only be possible for us to resist labeling all of Islam an enemy, if we can find and live with Muslim countries and people who we see as friends and allies.
In this, George Bush has been a genius, helping folks on both sides to the light. And now, cementing India as a strategic Ally to the West of Iran, as well as, giving the Chinese something new to consider. The game is so much larger than the day to day Gotcha politics, that perhaps we may need to notice we are at war and get back to defending our home front.
If this news is accurate, the next next major battle in this war may only be weeks away.. America sleeps while her enemies circle... Unfortunately this is necessary because of Patriots like Joe Wilson, the NY Times, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic/MSM party insist that many thousands/millions need to die before we are allowed to defend ourselves.
That is the first and the last day Iran will have the bomb!
Probably the reason that no one is "pointing that out" is that they would be dead wrong. Singapore is 15% Muslim, 15% Christian, and 42% Buddhist. That being the case, you wouldd be just as right (or wrong) to call Singapore a "Christian city state".
WHAT YOU SAY?!?!? IT'S YOU!!! HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMAN@!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
My point is that the Saudi's and China are already owning and running terminals in the US and Singapore was the alternate bidder. No where in sight was an alternate that would be any more secure than UAE.
However, at this point I descend into ignorance.
Iran may or may not want the bomb -- I don't know. We can be sure, though, that there's no way in hell they'll have one in six months. Even if they have the proper designs, they just don't have the uranium.
A good rule of thumb is that about 1500 centrifuges running for a year will give you enough U-238 to build a nuclear bomb. Iran is currently running 20 to 30 centrifuges. Plus, I've heard several reports that they're having technical problems with their enrichment: the Pakistanis sold them the blueprints to an enrichment method twice as fast, but the Iranians don't know how to use it.
The tricky part is that with only 20-30 centrifuges running, Iran's program does look more like a energy program than a weapons program. That causes problems for the US on both ends. On one hand, we could overreact and get ourselves into an unnecessary war with a non-nuclear Iran; on the other hand, if we're complacent, they may be able to quickly "breakout" to a weapons program if the IAEA isn't watching.
This is all predicated on the assumption that they're not being supplied with what they need. I am opposed to all UN Inspection programs. The reason? They kept telling us in Iraq how their entire WMD program could fit into a trailer. How can you inspect a whole country? Any nation that wants to keep the inspectors in the dark can do so.
Nuclear programs are much harder to hide because they require large, complicated, and delicate industrial equipment.
It is theoretically possible that Iran would be getting HEU from another source. Two things, though: (1) if they could buy HEU, why go to the trouble of making it? and (2) if there's someone out there selling weapons-grade uranium, we have a much bigger situation on our hands.
I agree with yout overall point.
As long as there are no American companies willing to bid on these operating contracts, the ports are left with two choices for their terminals: close them down or allow foreign companies to run them.
If we bar competitive foreign companies from bidding, the result will certianly be higher operating costs, making us less competitive in world markets.
You pay your money and make your choice.
20-30 or 200-300?
If we don't have access to the facility, how would we know?
if the Iranians have put these enrichment facilities undergroun d as reported, it seems to me it would be extraordinarily difficult for us to know just how many centriguges they have running, even within one order of magnitude.
Now, if this is so profitable, why are American companies running for the gates?
Did this just miss Warren Buffett et al? You might think that if it was just profitability you would find a diversity of ownership.. but instead we find the whole class of companies owned by foreign companies. So what are possible explanations for this odd situation?
I think this is the real story behind the story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.