Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 27, 2007

War on Iran - Imminent

Readers here may get tired of me talking about and linking to all the stuff about a War on Iran.

Sorry folks, but it is going to happen. Cheney/Bush will attack Iran and they will do so pretty soon. Most likely before April/May, before their British poodle leaves his office.

Robberts asks Why Can't Americans See What's Coming?. Well, some see it. But look at the pictures and reports of today's rinky-dink demonstration in Washington D.C. Any slogans against a war on Iran? Anything in the relevant OpEd's or in Congress?

Most people's thoughts and the media attention are about the ongoing war on Iraq. A war on Iran is considered to be an urban legend. Few have even considered what such a totally unjustified war may mean.

Not thinking has consequences.

I am still waiting of some news of another carrier leaving towards the Persian Gulf. Three carriers would allow for a sustained conventional air campaign against Iran. First against air-defense, then against military assets and then on to the real goal - bombing Iranian infrastructure and lives back into the middle-ages.

But if the U.S. goes nuclear, as some assess as likely, two carriers are all that is needed. The other assets, Marines to capture and secure Iranian oil-platforms, mine hunters to clear the street of Hormuz for oil tankers and some "surge" troops in Iraq to protect the bases and to secure logistics are in place.

The "hit" might come anytime now.

Crude oil gained some 10% through the last 10 days, gold some 8%. Lockheed shares did increase by 50% over the last year - ominous signs.

Pat Lang says there are "hundreds of thousands of people from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guard corps already in Iraq." He knows that realm and he definitly does not argue for a war: "We don't need any more wars. Wars are really bad."

When the U.S. bombs Iran, its troops in Iraq are toast. That calculated slaughter again will give justification, and a majority, for again introducing a draft and a total war by the U.S. and Israel on about every country in the Middle East.

Consider the original plans, documented four years ago:

Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future.

These plans are still operative. Some tactical problems in Iraq have slowed them down a bit, but the general strategy is firmly in place.

Americans and their Representatives and Senators have either not noticed or are compliant with this strategy.

There may be still a few ways to fight this, please try to do so now.

Posted by b on January 27, 2007 at 21:07 UTC | Permalink


Speaking for myself, I will never get tired of your linking to information about the Iran plans. This is the most important issue of our generation and we must vigorously and diligently sound alarms as often as we can.

Thank you for doing this.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 27 2007 21:11 utc | 1

Speaking of Karbala, the site of the abduction of US troops by mystery operatives wearing US uniforms, what better opportunity for something to go seriously awry than this upcoming event.

Each year, millions of Shi'ite pilgrims march, chant and some flagellate themselves in ritualistic processions through Karbala and through other Shi'ite centres around the country. The processions mourn the seventh century killing of their revered martyr, Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

Hussein was murdered in the Battle of Karbala in 680 AD on the day of Ashura, meaning 'tenth' in Arabic as it is the 10th day of Muharram, the first month of the Muslim calendar. Shi'ites consider him as their third Imam - after his brother Hassan ibn Ali and his father Ali ibn Abu Talib - and the rightful successor of the Prophet. Hussein's martyrdom is widely interpreted by Shi'ites as a symbol of the struggle against injustice, tyranny, and oppression.

This year's Ashura pilgrimage will end on 30 January.

Attacks blamed on Sunni extremists have rocked Ashura ceremonies over the past two years, killing hundreds of pilgrims. The increasing number of daily attacks in this war-ravaged country has made it very difficult for the health sector to cope with the high number of victims.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 27 2007 21:36 utc | 2

ditto #1 b

Posted by: annie | Jan 27 2007 21:40 utc | 3

There are some interesting comments on Helena Cobban's blog to her Part 2 post on the attack on Karbala.

Here are two:

"It's too early for Bush to use this as a casus belli. The USS Stennis is still sailing in the Pacific. Give it a month or so,"

I would have thought that there are ways of spinning this story out, so as to coincide with the arrival of the Stennis in the Gulf. The crucial point could be, for example, when "evidence" is discovered that the Iranians were responsible. That would take time for the investigation.

I have no doubt that the Iranians do help their friends in Iraq, as in Lebanon. It is a big jump, nevertheless, actually to attack US troops.

Still for the moment it is all speculation, and we will have to wait and see if accusations of Iranian intervention develop.

Personally I think that any of the competing parties in Iraq could have carried out the attack, including the US, the Sunnis, and the various Shi'a groups. I would tend to rule out the Sunnis, as penetrating Karbala would require exceptional courage.
Posted by XXX


I find the idea of Iran as the force behind Karbala to be just not believeable.

Presuming Iran was so stupid as to deliberatly inflame an already tense situation (is it?) it still has to find SUVs, steal license plates & uniforms & weaponry & then find enough well-trained, well-motivated English-speaking soldiers to carry out the job, and it has to do it in two weeks flat. That's simply not believeable.

Nor is it believeable that any of the known militias had anything to do with it, and for all the same reasons. Anti-American forces in Iraq have a track record: Cheap & dirty. Slick & sophisticated doesn't interest them.

It is at least worth considering that this was a "false flag" operation, with a twist. Consider that what looked like Americans at first glance, might really have been Americans.

The one telling detail, the one unmistakable fingerprint, is if the attacking forces used American combat techiques. American techniques are the only techniques that Americans know. In this regard, the reported use of stun grenades is a possible clue.

If we destroyed Falluja for four dead mercinaries, can we now attack Iran for five dead soldiers?
Posted by XXX

Posted by: Bea | Jan 27 2007 21:43 utc | 4

I assume Bea was hinting at a false flag operation in another post

and I guess I will go ahead and say it out loud. we do have a close ally in the region who does have access to US weapons, vehicles, and other assorted military hardware. It certainly would not be the first time they "helped" guide us in the right direction.

yep, it is a shitty thing to say.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 27 2007 21:53 utc | 5

@bea - the Karbala incident has all signs of an American action.

I totally agree with the comments you posted in #4.

Another issue: If this was a raided high level meeting discussing security in Karbala with the regional government why is the highest U.S. officer captured and killed only a Captain?

There should have been a full Colonel at least ...

But lets put back Iraq for the moment - the menue says Iran for now and the desert has some Saudi stuff ...

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2007 21:56 utc | 6

@dan - ack - Israel is real possibility here - much mor likely than Iran ...

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2007 21:58 utc | 7

NYT: On Iran, Bush Confronts Echoes of Iraq

This time, they insist, it is different.

“We’re not looking for a fight with Iran,” R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for policy and the chief negotiator on Iranian issues, said in an interview on Friday evening, just a few hours after Mr. Bush had repeated his warnings to Iran to halt “killing our soldiers” and to stop its drive for nuclear fuel.

To little, to late to "balanced" ...

The U.S. major media is all "he said she said" accept of course the Australian owned once which are all about "codpiece said ..."

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2007 22:04 utc | 8

b, I said in a last Iranian post that an attack was, for me, impossible, but if they go for the Truman option, well, goodnight and goodluck.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 27 2007 22:12 utc | 9

Thanks b. I'm away from my own computer and it's not easy to get MoA here but yours is the only news that means anything.

Please don't ever stop.

Posted by: beq | Jan 27 2007 22:13 utc | 10

yep, it is a shitty thing to say.

your forgiven dan. i left you another comment here. i don't know what's going on but i smell fish. bigtime. i think there is a likelyhood all these incidences lately are related.

there's been a lot of changing of the guards lately and there's more than one way to skin a cat.

can't seem to get the top brass accident off my mind. where's the payback. we leveled falluja for less. israel leveled southern lebanon for less. what the hoots going on....

Posted by: annie | Jan 27 2007 22:45 utc | 11


instinctually, i think as you do - that their only escape from defeat in iraq & afghanistan is to unleash a generalised war

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 27 2007 23:09 utc | 12

annie, don't make too much of a helo getting shot down. One of the colonels was flying the chopper. the other was a medic. the two top sergeants were doing a changeover. stuff happens. it could have been pilot error coupled with a lucky shot. it is a very dangerous part of the world and the fact that these incidents are rare attests to the precautions taken and overall level of skill involved.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 27 2007 23:10 utc | 13

superbowl+iran invasion=freedom

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 28 2007 0:03 utc | 14

The Karbala incident with English speaking blondes is just too sophisticated to be Shiite militiamen and it occurred out of the Sunni zone. It feels like Iranian “Special Forces”. The confused American response indicates that it occurred too soon to be a Polish Border Incident. Likely it is a Warning what will occur as Americans are isolated into “Joint Operation Centers” spread through out Baghdad and if the USA is stupid enough attack the Shiite militia or Iran.

The frightening part of the incidence is that the Warning will have absolutely no impact on the White House. To stop the Iran War, Republican Campaign Donors have to tell Karl Rove that $200 dollar barrel oil will kill the Republican Party. Can Wall Street see the writing on the wall and halt the march to total war?

Posted by: Jim S | Jan 28 2007 0:03 utc | 15

I think that many americans know what bush/cheney has in mind. that it was not mentioned or made a focus of the the demonstration (I didn't see all the speakers, so I can't say no one mentioned it) does not indicate that they are unaware.

rather, the demonstration itself supplies a message about wars of choice, wars in the middle east that are diplomatic disasters, etc. etc. etc. why can't Roberts make that connection? I'm sure the marchers do. the issue of withdrawal from Iraq doesn't just mean withdrawal from Iraq. It's about withdrawal from the middle east as an occupier, about creating a middle east-wide war to destablize the entire region and every regime there.

ppl in the house of reps have talked about this as well. remember....impeachment is off the table? remember, it's not wrong to have an opinion diff. than Bush about war in the M.E.? (that was Hagel, I believe.)

the problem is mainstream media that takes the bush administration at their word, after half a decade of lies. d'oh. they should be asking their readers if they want to attack Iran. of course, fox news will no doubt have a poll that claims 85% want to attack.

the other problem is that people have expressed their opinion on this issue in the elections, and yet the dems do not want to put themselves in a "they lost the war" position...because that's what would happen with the mainstream media with the repuke talking heads and Fucked News. Positioning for elections, you know...

if the Dems are getting all saavy and, with republicans who are not insane, are getting ready for a confrontation via the constitutional crisis of the "unitary executive" -- if they refuse to fund an attack on Iran with impeachment proceedings ahead if Cheneybush go forward (tho that's really b.s., isn't it? again they'd be pressured to go the "support the troops" route... ) so, the dems, by not making this an issue of the president's accountablity to the american ppl via them, well makes me think we're fucked.

this isn't new, btw. look back in history (in any nation) and see if the news and the "popular culture" did not ignore reality for the sake of war... or rather, who can name a time when this wasn't the case?

again, as far as I'm concerned, I will not give my sons to the cheney/halliburton meat grinder. if american mothers would take this stand, who would fight this war? (who, Blackwater, that's who...) private military makes an attack on Iran more possible too.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 28 2007 1:54 utc | 16

Guardian: Hype versus Reality: Iran's Nuclear Plans in Chaos


Talking to the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Mohamed El Baradei appealed for all sides to take a 'time out' under which Iranian enrichment and UN sanctions would be suspended simultaneously, adding that the point at which Iran is able to produce a nuclear weapon is at least half a decade away. In pointed comments aimed at the US and Israel, the Nobel Peace prize winner warned that an attack on Iran would have 'catastrophic consequences'.

Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants.

The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 28 2007 1:59 utc | 17

I more or less hinted at it before, but my position for the next country to use any nuke has been quite clear and obvious. In this case, if the US or Israel decides to go nuclear, I hope the Russians and Chinese will incinerate the whole fucking country to the last squared inch of dirt. I mean it. The first country to use a nuke should be made an example for all to see, by having all the other nuclear powers have a go at it and wiping their sorry asses off the map.
(which of course also applies to Iran if it ever becomes nuclear in 10 years and decides to go after Israel)

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jan 28 2007 3:14 utc | 18


Leaving aside the fact that that sort of rhetoric is precisely the sort of thing that got Bush into office in the first place, that's a problematic proposal at best. Suppose it were to be agreed upon, and the U.S. was the next country to use a nuke. If someone decided to retaliate in kind, then the U.S. would also be the third, and although incinerating every square inch of the U.S. would be difficult, I have a suspicion that as things stand now, the U.S. might very well be able to incinerate at least the non-trivially inhabited square inches of, say, China, even after taking the strike. In fact, I bet the neocons would love to have an excuse to do so; it would let them write off national debt to China and eliminate them as competition on the world stage. Russia less so, but they're probably on the list, too.

Not sure what would happen if Israel were incinerated in a retaliatory strike. There would be a lot of outrage, but the neocons think Israel is a cat's paw instead of a tail wagging an entirely different dog, so they might not retaliate with nukes. (And it would certainly put a spoke in the wheels of the rapturists if Israel no longer actually existed; after the initial outbursts of rage, they would have to confront the fact that Israel was never going to spread any more.)

I'm just hoping we never find out, either way. The world has enough to worry about, thank you.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Jan 28 2007 3:44 utc | 19

iran is a better team tnan iraq, but both are the suckiest nfl franchises in football history.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 28 2007 4:04 utc | 20

stuff happens. it could have been pilot error coupled with a lucky shot. it is a very dangerous part of the world and the fact that these incidents are rare attests to the precautions taken and overall level of skill involved.

thanks dan, it's really hard to think about a coup of our military from some blackwater militia.

then we are truely screwed.

i will consider it more tomorrow, but thinking someone as yourself has confidence in no maleficence gives me some relief.

Posted by: annie | Jan 28 2007 7:36 utc | 21

after ww2 the ptb in the US controlled a country that was half the world's economy, a creditor on a massive scale, the technological, industrial, and (pop) cultural linchpin of the world. The self-image lags reality, so that Reagan's notion of America was really a way to congratulate ourselves for we were after ww2. Now the self-image is out of whack, big time. Big Time Dick himself, I think, deep down, knows this. There is only one way to regain this sort of dominance. Direct control of energy. No proxies. No problematic viceroys like Saddam, just a parade of bought parliaments. Rumsfeld's way failed. The choice is whether to give up or do Billmon's flight forward.

I think he stopped blogging out of despair. If he was right, we are headed for Scheuer's Shermanesque WW3, and if he is wrong, that is a good thing but still suggests that he is not worth listening to. So blogging was a lose/lose proposition, or at least it might seem that way to him. All I can say is that he opened my eyes to many things, and I'm sure I'm not alone, and I think I've been able to influence those around me. And really as crucial as these years are, there will be decisions to be made many years out, and voices like his will carry on far longer than anyone can imagine. On a more (billmonesque?) cynical level, the worst of all possible worlds will always be at the door. This will still be true in 2030. We can not give up the dream of a world of where people are treated as something other than objects, or our descendants will rightfully condemn us.

I've had a bit to drink and it's late here in the sleepy west of the wooded east, but I've got ideas, to us that's dear

Posted by: boxcar mike | Jan 28 2007 7:40 utc | 22

Guardian/Observer: They're broken men, so don't let them take us to a new war
Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad have lost face at home; now others must forge peaceful settlements in the Middle East

A loss of confidence in both men at home is important because it offers us a brief opportunity to assert diplomacy over the habits of rhetoric and escalation. Although UN nuclear experts suggest the Iranians are at least five years from developing a bomb and delivery system, the Iranians are due to open a large uranium enrichment plant within a matter of weeks. If this goes ahead, a peaceful solution will be much harder to find; to decommission this new facility will require a loss of face for Ahmadinejad.

So the hawks in the West will begin the slow drumbeat for a first strike. Indeed, it has already started. For some weeks, the Daily Telegraph has been running a series of what, in my opinion, are extremely dubious stories all attributed to mysterious 'European defence officials' and 'senior Western military sources'. A front-page story last week suggested that North Korea has offered to help Iran with a nuclear test within the year. Apart from these shadowy spokesmen, it could offer no evidence, which is why the story was only seriously picked up in Israel.
Make no mistake: this a much more dangerous situation than Iraq and it is unfolding on the watch of a couple of second-raters.

It is true that few nations that have been more estranged over the last quarter of a century, but with the stakes so high, it seems extraordinary that America has no representation in Tehran and almost no contact except through the Swiss embassy.
But the situation is not beyond hope. The West must realise that if a first strike takes place we have lost. Whatever is destroyed in Iran, the Iranians will come back and produce a bomb that they may feel more entitled to use. The clash of civilisations predicted by neocon academics for years will have moved a step closer to dominating the 21st century at the very moment when all civilisation needs to concentrate on the multiple threats presented by climate change.

What we must hope for is a collective act of will in Europe, and among wiser heads in Washington DC, which says it doesn't have to be this way. This is not impossible.

Posted by: b | Jan 28 2007 8:35 utc | 23

Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future.

Translation: CR_S_D_

Anybody want to buy a vowel?!?

Posted by: Sizemore | Jan 28 2007 8:44 utc | 24

Quite a well written (long) portray of the political situation in Iran: Whose Iran?

To this day, the structure of the Iranian state remains too liberal for the authoritarians and too authoritarian for the liberals, but the traditional conservatives at the center of power cannot resolve this obvious paradox at the republic’s heart without relinquishing their own position. The best they could do was to revise the Constitution after Khomeini’s death, greatly expanding the powers of the clerical councils and of the supreme leader at the expense of the elected offices.

Clerics I spoke to from the traditional conservative camp associated with Khamenei were paternalistic in their view of the state rather than outright authoritarian. They seemed to genuinely believe in a limited form of popular sovereignty — guided, of course, by Islamic scholars so that the people would not fall into error but nonetheless necessary for the legitimacy of the state.

It was this traditional conservative establishment that the reformists, many of them clerics, hoped to transform by introducing new policies through the legal channels of the state and by persuading jurists to assimilate new ideas about rights and freedoms into their interpretations of the sacred texts. One of the leading reformist theorists, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, explained to me: “Many nations have influenced our jurisprudence. We could set aside some of the decrees of Islam today and bring some Western laws to replace them. This doesn’t make us infidels.”

After eight years in power, the reform movement found itself blocked by the conservative establishment, hamstrung by its own mistakes and unwilling or unable to shore up the failing economy. Ahmadinejad rose in its wake, campaigning not on ideological extremism but on populist blandishments. He would ease the financial pain of his countrymen, he promised, by bringing Iran’s oil wealth to the people’s tables.

I don't agree with the analysis end that Iran will fall over the contradictions, rather it will find a way for itself - if not bombed away.


Posted by: b | Jan 28 2007 9:13 utc | 25

I saw a movie today, "Pan's Labyrinth", set in Franco's Spain (circa 1944) which was suffused with the dark energy of civil brutality, the outcome of a fascist ascendancy, filled with torture and extra-judicial murder that had become casual. The world is still victimized by people who bow to authority without questioning its orders or motives.

Our President who spoke so brazenly in pursuit of his lawless wiretapping a year ago is exactly the same man he was then, although now he dons another mask for his latest State of the Union speech, and his temporary lack of swagger becomes a useful tactic, as he methodically rolls out the war machine and sets his sights on Iran. The aggression is unthinkable. It is incalculable. It proceeds with malice aforethought. It is all cold-blooded murder, all meticulous and monstrous treason; and it is a legacy alright, a set piece beside the greatest crimes of history.

State terror and violence are being placed in tandem with mercenary terror and violence. An ever-widening sphere of destruction and carnage is being allowed. The provocations against Iran have already been initiated. The war against Iran is already in motion. Like the Schlieffen Plan that took years of German preparation before World War I, this present war was well prepared in advance. And what we see is an agenda, a momentum toward a set of objectives.

Seymour Hersh and other investigative reporters have warned us of the relentless war aims of this administration. We can expected a ramped up series of skirmishes accompanied by bellicose statements from Bush's White House, increasing in frequency as the date set for the attack approaches. So many of us wonder whether the showdown with Congress that seems inevitable, will fall apart as a capitulation to Bush/Cheney's sadistic progress of brutality and ambition--or if on the other hand--courage might prevail in Congress. Bush will try to present his bloodthirsty agenda as an inevitability; but Pelosi and the Democrats (and some Republicans) are not so stupid or naive as to not see this ploy for what it is.

Congress must come to see that Bush's War is a concerted assault on America's democratic institutions, and represents more of a danger to law and reason and decency than any foreign enemy could mount.

Posted by: Copeland | Jan 28 2007 10:14 utc | 26

@bea - the Karbala incident has all signs of an American action.
Yap…they did same in Bosnia and Kosovo. They are staging horrors to start violence as wars for humanitarian reasons…and revenge.

They did it before too…

Posted by: vbo | Jan 28 2007 14:27 utc | 27

Guardian/Observer: Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders

Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.

Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.

Article continues
Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.
The detailed descriptions of Iran's problems in enriching more than a few grams of uranium using high-speed centrifuges - 50kg is required for two nuclear devices - comes in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture being painted of Iran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which to attack Israel. Instead, say experts, the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has massively set back an Iran heavily dependent on his network.

A key case in point is that Tehran originally procured the extremely high-quality bearings required for the centrifuges' carbon-fibre 'top rotors' - spinning dishes within the machines - from foreign companies in Malaysia.

With that source closed down two years ago, Iran is making the bearings itself with only limited success. It is the repeated failure of these crucial bearings, say some sources, that has been one of the programme's biggest setbacks.
Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants.

The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme.
It also emerged last week in the Israeli media that the country's private diplomatic efforts to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran were being co-ordinated by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad.

Posted by: b | Jan 28 2007 15:28 utc | 28

I was at the march and saw many signs about Iran. More than that everyone in the march talked about it. I would say the common thread when you talked to fellow marchers was "Iran is next,maybe after Bush attacks Iran we will have the millions in the street we need to influence Congress to impeach, and arrest these criminals"
There were many signs that had Iran as there subject. Look around the internet at the protest photos and you will see what I mean.
I don't agree the march was "rinky dink" I came in a three bus convoy from Michigan, 165 in our group, most have never attemded a protest before. I know of at least 10 other 55 person busses that came from other Mich cities. I know other states had buses as well. Of course the media represents us as "rinky dink" you would hope we would get better treatment on the lefty blogs.

Posted by: peon | Jan 29 2007 2:18 utc | 29

it was not rinky dink

they always play down the size, the people on c span says is went on as far as the eyes could see as did the one i went to in nyc where they stashed all the people on the side streets so that you could never see the whole crowd together, they had to funnel in, had they let the marchers continue up the street it would have gone thru the whole city, instead they u turned it. this is why they didn't want it in central park, so it couldn't be measured.

they should be proud of protesters.

Posted by: annie | Jan 29 2007 2:31 utc | 30

It seems to me that the logic of Bushco's schemes require them to stay in office beyond January 2009. How will they do this? Declaring martial law and cancelling elections? Arresting leading dem contenders? Not handing over the keys to the White House and hunkering down?

Posted by: Brian Boru | Jan 29 2007 5:14 utc | 31

It's a 3 card trick. It's not "Bush's war". Clinton or any "dem" will do just nicely.

This 'martial law' and 'cancelling elections' thing is a furphy.

Posted by: DM | Jan 29 2007 10:24 utc | 32

Clueless Joe:

Showering nukes on a country the size of the USA would result in a worldwide ecological catastrophe. Besides, the USA has enough nukes to fry the whole planet several times over.

Posted by: Loveandlight | Jan 30 2007 6:47 utc | 33

@peon - annie

In regards to what is needed, I stay with the "rinky-dinky" description.

And of course I do not blame those who did show up.

Josh has this right:

Like the line says, first do no harm. And for the United States as a country, right now, that means doing everything constitutionally, legally and politically possible to limit the president's and even more Vice President Cheney's free hand to shape and execute American foreign policy. Sift it all out and it's that simple. Stop them from doing any more damage. All the rest is commentary and elaboration.
The US has 300 million inhabitants. Why aren't millions in the streets?

Posted by: b | Jan 30 2007 19:27 utc | 34

The comments to this entry are closed.