Israeli assault on Iran is contrary to U.S. interests
From The Christian Science Monitor:
Senior Pentagon officials are making no secret of the fact that despite the apparent stepped-up drumbeat to war with Iran, they believe a strike on the country is “not prudent” right now.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, put this view – held by many in the Department of Defense – in perhaps the strongest terms yet this week.
True, Israel could bomb Iran and delay the country’s ability to create nuclear weapons “probably for a couple of years,” General Dempsey told CNN Sunday.
The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be “beyond the reach” of the Israeli military, in what Dempsey called a “zone of immunity.”
… Equally important, senior defense officials emphasize, while it’s clear that Iran aspires to nuclear technology, it is far from certain whether the country is intent on actually weaponizing this technology,
This was the finding of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)’s recent assessment on security threats facing the United States. Right now, Iran is “more than capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon if its political leaders – specifically the supreme leader himself – chooses to do so,” DNI head James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee February 16.
Yet so far they do not appear to have made that choice, Lt. General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers in the same hearing.
“The agency assesses Iran as unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict,” he said, concluding that though the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon is “technically feasible,” it is “practically not likely.”
It’s interesting: People who would ordinarily insist that politicians “listen to the generals” are themselves turning a deaf ear to the generals, preferring not to hear their advice in this particular adventure.
It’s also interesting to see it argued that a U.S. president ought to “get right” with a foreign country and in effect allow that foreign country — in this case Israel — to dictate U.S. diplomatic and military policy in a strategically critical area, even to the detriment of U.S. interests.
And no, U.S. interests and Israeli interests are not somehow cosmically aligned in perfect parallel to each other.
Finally, it’s downright fascinating to see the same people who were beating the war drums so loudly over Iraq, blind to the consequences of their preferred course of action, once again pounding out statements and op-eds demanding military solutions. The wonder isn’t that those people haven’t changed — they are who they are. The wonder is that they are still heeded.
If you want $6-a-gallon gasoline, Iraq up in flames and a lot more trouble in Afghanistan, with the lives of U.S. troops put at greater risk, then sure, an unprovoked assault on Iran is just the thing. If all that and more is worth a two-to-three-year delay in Iran’s nuclear program that a successful strike might produce, then make that argument.
Me, I’m not convinced.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
252 comments Add your comment
kayaker 71
February 21st, 2012
8:58 am
Oh, where are you Ronnie when we need you the most.
Thomas
February 21st, 2012
8:58 am
So your off the cuff comment that I must have all of the “24″ shows on CD is really childish and unbecoming of you. In case you can’t tell, I’m on your side
fly- you are on the the “granny go round”-
jump off now as it has more negative long term effects than water boarding
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 21st, 2012
8:59 am
Mick, sometimes the duh factor among the chickenhawks is amazing, isn’t it?
The distance from from Tel Aviv to Tehran is 950 miles, less than from Atlanta to Wichita, Ks.
Imagine irradiating all of the Jayhawker and Sooner states and pretending that none of that cloud is gonna affect the people in Georgia.
The gang in the 101st Chairborne are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier…
And Jay @8:30, is this where I make the observation that he calls himself a veteran? LOL…
Jay
February 21st, 2012
8:59 am
You mean Ronnie “Cut and Run from Lebanon” Reagan, kayaker?
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
8:59 am
Paul
February 21st, 2012
8:53 am
Lots easier to not go to war when we got thousands of nukes pointed at them and they at us.
Not the case with Iran. We are currently on schedule to eliminate many of our current nukes correct? So its not the same thing in all due respect.
I’m less likely to punch you if you got a gun pointed at me….. and you less likely to punch me if I got a gun pointed at you too. Odds are neither will shoot, but can almost promise you neither will throw a punch.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:01 am
jm
““they aren’t stupid enough to wipe out a civilization knowing that they will be wiped out themselves.”
Tell that to the Japanese or Germans circa 1941.”
And on what do you base the assertion Japan did not think it had a reasonable chance of establishing its empire and, with the US Navy neutralized, negotiating a settlement with the US?
Butch Cassidy
February 21st, 2012
9:01 am
Generation$crewed – “We are currently on schedule to eliminate many of our current nukes correct?”
Even if we did, we would still be the predominate nuclear power in the world.
Midori
February 21st, 2012
9:02 am
dang it Jay!!!
You stole my comment @8:59!!
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
9:02 am
Fair essay except it assumes average reader knows the other half. This is a tough one for me, not because of the “prestige of generals” – the identity of the speaker is irrelevant except to a cultist/leftist – but because of the core truth of their statements. An Israeli attack on Iran would unquestionably have repercussions for the US and Europe. That inconvenience factor is not to be ignored in the calculus. The core question is whether disarming a nuclear Iran is worth the costs, or turned around, whether life with a nuclear Iran is worth living.
The first question is whether iran is trustworthy. We have 30 years of experience with the theocracy. It is one of the two countries normally described as suffering a crazy leadership. (No, not Chauncey, North Korea.) Various elements of the Iranian government periodically express a “need” to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. While our Jewish brethren have suffered similar nearly-successful efforts in the past, surely all can agree that an nuclear Iran with missiles could accomplish the express goal.
If there is a course short of war that could ensure a peaceful Iran, it ought to be embraced. However, when the iranian people revolted 2.5 years ago, a precursor for the Arab Spring (I know Iranians are not Arabs, “Muslim” spring would be a better name for the Middle East uprisings, but that would also be politically incorrect) the US government offered not even a statement of support, much less the minimal military effort necessary to make the uprising successful. (E,g., blocking gasoline imports into the country, to starve the military machine that quelled the rebellion.) Our current government has no intention of taking steps, short of war, that could be effective.
Thus we seem to be at the point where we have to support the Israel effort – which would be difficult for a country without aircraft carriers – or allow Iran to go nuclear. The US government declaration of nonsupport for the military effort against Iran, effectively taking war “off the table” is surely a morale booster for Tehran.
jm
February 21st, 2012
9:03 am
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/how-the-u-s-iran-standoff-looks-from-israel-efraim-inbar.html
drive by
Midori
February 21st, 2012
9:03 am
Morning Paul
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
9:03 am
Thomas
and a gracious good morning to you.
you look sharp this morning.
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:03 am
Paul
February 21st, 2012
8:58 am
Hey don’t be addin Z’s to my name I hate Z’s
Iran has lied numerous times and been decietful with inspectors, but as of yet there is no evidence of weaponi(z)ation.
Just not right to convict people because of shady behavior and our opinion.
That is for the US, now if i’m Isreal, I may be a little more worried and feeling froggy
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
9:05 am
Jay, doesn’t seem to understand the political pressures that are applied at that level and how some cave in to it only to preserve their careers. Dempsey, is reflecting the Obama administration policy that either continues to stick its head in the sand or is more concerned with the November election rather than facing up to the reality of what’s happening in that part of the world. Left wing ideology sure blinds common sense.
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:06 am
Butch Cassidy
February 21st, 2012
9:01 am
I know, but as a fact we will have far fewer than during the cold war. Both countries had enough pointed at each other that both sides knew the world was over if either side did anything stupid.
Not eh case now, was showing the difference. There are plenty of nukes to end teh world on the planet now. But far less likely than when a vast majority of the nukes on earth are pointed at each other.
Makes things tense but usually ensures no action.
Adam
February 21st, 2012
9:06 am
We are currently on schedule to eliminate many of our current nukes correct?
Old and potentially inaccurate or defective ones, yes. Out of hundreds, if I am correct. How many nukes do you need to completely wipe out a nation?
Midori
February 21st, 2012
9:07 am
Del -
since you know how to deal with this situation better than anyone else, what specifically do you propose the administration do at this point in time?
Butch Cassidy
February 21st, 2012
9:08 am
Recon 0311 2533 – “Left wing ideology sure blinds common sense.
You mean like a pre-emptive strike against a soverign nation based on little to no credible intellegince? Or perhaps underestimating the situation so badly that a planned month long excursion turns into a 9 year commitment? Common sense like that?
Midori
February 21st, 2012
9:08 am
Butch -
didn’t you know Recon is The Oracle?
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:08 am
Adam
February 21st, 2012
9:06 am
A few, but waaaaay fewer than we still got
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:09 am
Generation$crewed
“Lots easier to not go to war when we got thousands of nukes pointed at them and they at us.”
You may want to read up on Cuba and Berlin.
You may also want to read about what prompted schoolkids to practice ‘duck and cover.’
You may also want to look up some papers from the time on whether of not an all-out nuclear exchange was winnable or survivable. And why many in our country proclaimed “better dead than Red.”
As far as the nuke reductions, there’s a lot less need for redundancy with the current generation of weapons. Think of it in terms of a B-17 dropping an entire load from 35,000 feet using a Norden bomb site and a B-2 carrying a single steerable load.
Brosephus
February 21st, 2012
9:09 am
AmVet @ 8:25
Thanks for the link. I didn’t know about that one there. Gotta file that one in my weapons folder.
Butch Cassidy
February 21st, 2012
9:13 am
Generatio$crewed – “Not eh case now, was showing the difference. ”
True, but Iran is a much smaller target than the USSR. Besides, My dad was on the design team for the first generation Minuteman back in the late 50’s early 60’s. Those missles are due for retirement regardless of who the current threat is.
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:14 am
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:09 am
I don’t need to read up on that. Have done enough research to satisfy myself on the subject for the time.
Again, did war ever break out?
Did either side launch a full envasion at any time?
Were any nukes deployed?
You think it had anything to do with the fact both sides knew the consequences of any of those being yes?
BTW, seems I’m being seen as against the nukes destruction. Well I’m not, was simply showing you that comparing the current situation with Iran as to that of the cold war is apples to oranges. Different times and different circumstances, with different consequences for answering yes to the 3 earlier questions.
Intown
February 21st, 2012
9:17 am
It not being practical and it not being in US interests are not the same thing Jay.
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:17 am
Butch Cassidy
February 21st, 2012
9:13 am
I don’t care if the destroy the bombs or send them to space, hell if they can use them for 4th of july celebrations it would make for great fireworks.
Was simply showing the consequences for misaction were known and much more severe than now. It was easier to not launch an attack on ones opponent because of the known response.
Was teh only point I was making, none of a political nature in favor or opposition to the nuke destruction.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:17 am
Generation$crewed
“Hey don’t be addin Z’s to my name I hate Z’s”
Sorry ’bout zat.
As to the rest of your post, I’ve no real problem with it.
I would hope people, especially the Left, would demand the same standard of ‘proof’ indicated before and after our invasion of Iraq over their nonexistent WMD program.
ragnar
“This is a tough one for me, not because of the “prestige of generals” – the identity of the speaker is irrelevant except to a cultist/leftist – but because of the core truth of their statements. ”
Are you saying listening to a discussion on particle physics, it makes no difference who’s likely to provide statements with cores of truth, if the speaker is the director of the Large Hadron Collider or if he has a talk radio show?
Hi Midori!!!
Bosch
February 21st, 2012
9:18 am
“I’m of the opinion that I hope it gets so damn high that the people who demagogue public transit get down on their knees an fellate their entire lineup of elected officials in an attempt to get transit to their area.”
I’ll give that a hearty TESTIFY!!
Make it so inconvenient to drive, people will beg for mass transit.
And Happy Fat Tuesday everyone!!
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:19 am
Recon
“Jay, doesn’t seem to understand the political pressures that are applied at that level and how some cave in to it only to preserve their careers. Dempsey, is reflecting the Obama administration policy”
Now you’re saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the senior military advisor to the President, is guilty of dereliction of duty and he’s a coward, to boot?
Cynic
February 21st, 2012
9:21 am
Interesting that Jay had to quote “The Christian Science Monitor” to support his position of wait and see. Since the facilities are “underground” the world is relying on what the Iranians are showing to U.N weapons inspectors for starters. I guess we’ll just have to hope they’re being truthful then.
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
9:21 am
Iran announces that its cutting off oil exports to France and the U.K. which spikes the cost of oil which in turn spikes the cost of gasoline. We now have the highest price per gallon at the pump on record for the month of February. The Obama administration fearing that the rising cost of gasoline will further impact the economy and hurt is re-election prospects decides to once again play nice with Iran in hopes of influencing them away from their threat to further disrupt their oil exports which will continue to increase the cost of oil on worldwide markets. The Obama administration has placed getting re-elected ahead of our national security. This is an administration that can only campaign but cannot effectively govern.
USMC
February 21st, 2012
9:22 am
Barack Hussein Obama refuses to salute US flag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o
Unbelievable!
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
9:23 am
Dear Paul @ 9:17, right. Merely holding a position does not make one competent to expound on theory. Rather the content of the argument is persuasive, or not. For leftists mere credentials are proof of correctness, without regard to the content averred, i.e., leftists embrace the opinions of their overlords without question, because they are the overlords, For conservatives, a logical argument is sufficient, even from one without credentials, but the content of the argument determines the willingness to accept the argument.
Cynic
February 21st, 2012
9:23 am
Can’t we let Jimmy Carter send in some helicopters or something??
Just Say NO to Another War
February 21st, 2012
9:23 am
This country cannot afford another war. It will take years to pay off the debt from Iraq and Afghanistan! America will be better off in the long run if we just take care of our own struggling people!
Keep Up--Te gusta losing numb nutz?
February 21st, 2012
9:24 am
Awww….poor FTroop Reconned….. more posts without real intelligence.
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
9:24 am
Recon
Are you suggesting that if President Obama plays “not nice” gas will get cheaper?
Joseph
February 21st, 2012
9:26 am
Gas prices at $3.53 a gallon and not a word from the President….
Butch Cassidy
February 21st, 2012
9:26 am
Just say NO to another war – “This country cannot afford another war.”
Sure we can, all we have to do is cut taxes a little more to pay for it.
kayaker 71
February 21st, 2012
9:27 am
Suddenly the generals have credibility. Remember General Betray Us? And I am sure that LT General Barry McCaffry felt the love and the warm and fuzzies from all of those enthusiastic Clinton supporters. And then when a general calls it like it is, like Stan McCrystal telling the truth about what a bungling “leader” that Bozo is, he is fired. So the love for generals has it’s moments in Liberal Land….. if you agree with us, you are a sage adviser and should be heard. If you don’t however, even though you are considered the finest field commander in the last 50yrs, we call you names and demean you. Like Bozo…. a bunch of friggin’ (just for you Bookman) hypocrites.
Jay
February 21st, 2012
9:27 am
“Since the facilities are “underground” the world is relying on what the Iranians are showing to U.N weapons inspectors for starters. I guess we’ll just have to hope they’re being truthful then.”
Let’s say your cynicism is justified, Cynic. Let’s say we DON’T know where those facilities are.
Now … how are you going to bomb them?
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
9:27 am
USMC
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/7/f/bush_tummy_pledge.jpg
Mr. Silly Pants
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:29 am
Bosch
February 21st, 2012
9:18 am
That will unproportionally fall on the shoulders of the middle class and poor.
Public transit if started today would still be years off until complete.
So you are hoping for the poor to get even poorer so you can get what you want, cause it ain’t gone hurt the wealthy to pay a lil more at the pump. Not to mention you are greatly lowering the disposble income of those in the middle class or those who are poor. Taking more money out of folks pockets boy that should help the economy. But hey you want public transit, who cares who it hurts or ruins along the way.
How honorable
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 21st, 2012
9:29 am
Paul was that 9:17 a cheap shot at Rush the vulcanologist/climatologist?
Bro, you’re welcome.
Can’t we let Jimmy Carter send in some helicopters or something??
GFY.
Over and out. (Before I get red carded.)
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:30 am
Generation$crewed
“don’t need to read up on that. Have done enough research to satisfy myself on the subject for the time.”
I just reread you “Lots easier to not go to war when we got thousands of nukes pointed at them and they at us.” and think I understand where you’re coming from.
So let’s agree for a moment it’s easier to go to war with Iran. What does ‘easier’ mean? More willing to use partial intelligence? Easier to minimize the consequences for us? Easier to risk a war because we feel we’re invulnerable?
Easier to do something really stupid?
Look at it this way. We attack and delay their program by a few years. The years go by and one day they spring a nuke on the world.
At that point, do we really discount the saying ‘payback’s a b!tch”?
Brosephus
February 21st, 2012
9:31 am
Iran announces that its cutting off oil exports to France and the U.K. which spikes the cost of oil which in turn spikes the cost of gasoline.
Iran announced those cutoffs AFTER the EU had already placed sanctions on Iran that prohibited the importing of oil from Iran. In theory, a cutoff announced after the banning of imports should not have any effect on oil prices. In actuality, speculators see these actions as a gold mine waiting for the taking. Therefore, just prepare to spend more for gas and everything else as a result.
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
9:31 am
“Now you’re saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the senior military advisor to the President, is guilty of dereliction of duty and he’s a coward, to boot?”
Paul, I’m not saying that, you’re saying that. I clearly said that Dempsey at his level comes under direct political pressure from in this case Obama whose unfortunately the Commander in Chief of the military. Now would you like to make your own interpretation on what I think of the Obama presidency or would you prefer to make misinterpretations of what I think of General Dempsey?
Adam
February 21st, 2012
9:31 am
Jay: Now … how are you going to bomb them?
Obviously Jay, we have enough nukes to just level the entire nation. If you can’t find the nuke facilities, just bomb the crap out of the entire surface area of the country. And if we miss the nuke facilities? Maybe it won’t matter because so few people will be left.
Or something.
Road Scholar
February 21st, 2012
9:32 am
USMC: You do realize that he was taught to stand with your hands folded when he was a child in Hawaii, don’t you? Criticize the adult who taught him, not the President. When this was brought to his attention, he changed it. This is old stuff. Get over it!
Peadawg
February 21st, 2012
9:33 am
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/20/markets/oil_gas_iran/index.htm?hpt=hp_c2
Sucks that Iran is holding the rest of the world hostage. If we keep pissing them off, they stop exporting oil.
Joseph
February 21st, 2012
9:34 am
Has Obama even commented about this or does he continue to send his trolls out to speak for him???
Joseph
February 21st, 2012
9:34 am
Oh I’m sorry he’s to busy campaigning to worry about things like this…..
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
9:34 am
Recon
Are you suggesting that if President Obama plays “not nice” gas will get cheaper?
Did you miss the question earlier?
Billings
February 21st, 2012
9:35 am
Gallup—The Feb. 2-5 poll of 1,029 adults found that 32 percent of those surveyed ranked Iran as the nation’s greatest enemy, an increase of 7 percentage points from last year. Almost 25 percent listed China as the top threat, followed by North Korea with 10 percent; Afghanistan at 7 percent; and Iraq, at 5 percent.
Broken down by political leanings, Gallup found that Iran rates as the top enemy among all party groups, though Republicans are slightly more likely than independents or Democrats to mention Iran. Republicans are also more likely to mention China than Democrats are.
Russia didn’t make the Gallup top five list of current greatest enemies; it shared sixth place with Pakistan, with 2 percent of those surveyed ranking both as a threat.
One percent of those surveyed indicated they consider the United States itself to be its own worst enemy.
Putting Bookman and his libs among the 1%.
kayaker 71
February 21st, 2012
9:36 am
Bozo gets what he wants to hear from most military at the top. Those with three stars want a fourth and you don’t get it by disagreeing with the boss. Ask Stan McCrystal. The most vocal gets appointed to head up the CIA, effectively side lining him from political competition, just like Hillary. Keep you friends close but your enemies closer.
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
9:37 am
“In theory, a cutoff announced after the banning of imports should not have any effect on oil prices.”
I don’t know whose theory but according to some industry experts it does have an effect on world oil prices because it upsets the overall supply of exports in the worldwide market.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:39 am
Recon
“The Obama administration has placed getting re-elected ahead of our national security.”
Our national security is determined by whether or not gas is $4 a gallon?!!?
Hi Bosch!!!
ragnar
“right. Merely holding a position does not make one competent to expound on theory. Rather the content of the argument is persuasive, or not. For leftists mere credentials are proof of correctness, without regard to the content averred, i.e., leftists embrace the opinions of their overlords without question, because they are the overlords, For conservatives, a logical argument is sufficient, even from one without credentials, but the content of the argument determines the willingness to accept the argument.”
In other words, for conservatives a person’s background, profession, training or accomplishments have no bearing on the validity of the opinion on a topic directly related to his area of expertise?
So a college professor with a website saying the Bush Administration destroyed the Twin Towers has equal credibility with the National Security Advisor?
Isn’t it more realistic to say, in such situations, those giving foreign policy advise, especially in specialized areas, begin with more credibility than those with none? But having said that, simultaneously recognizing the experts may be unwilling to ‘think outside the box’?
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:40 am
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:30 am
I’m not saying anyone should attack Iran.
Especially not us!
I would understand if Israel chose to attack. I would get that, and would not be able to blame them.
Hopefully yet doubtfully peace may be given a chance and that will not come to pass. However if it does that is when the real hard questions will have to be answered on our part. Israel is our only true allie in that region of the world, but how long are we going to be fighting this war or that war in the middle east.
hell we should at least try to grab some land while there, ain’t that how they did it back in the day whoever won the war or battle kept the land, or maybe we could market it as a new crusades and might be able to cash in and give more people work and or something to do and believe in….. well nevermind got on a rant…. we could make some money on this though. Video game rights, trading cards, t-shirts………..
Joseph
February 21st, 2012
9:41 am
How will Obama spin this????
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-finds-unemployment-climbing-nine-percent-february
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 21st, 2012
9:43 am
Well, it’s like the Godfather says. Some folks just beg to be killed. Kill me, kill me, they say. And Iran’s begging to be killed. They been messing with Israel for years and years. Sort of reminds me of what happened to Joe Bob Taylor up at Billy Bob’s a few months ago. Joe Bob, he was messing with Goober Dempsey for months, picking on him. Finally, Goober stepped up behind Joe Bob with a empty beer pitcher and smashed it over Joe Bob’s head. Took 15 stiches to sew Joe Bob up.
Anyhow, when somebody’s itching for a fight the only way to deal with it is give the person a knuckle sandwich and get it over with. Israel knows Iran ain’t never going to stop building a A-bomb till it lands a big one in the middle of Jeruselem. So get the war over with now, before little ____ Zell George is old enough to go and fight it. I’ll deal with the high gas prices and buy as many Support Our Troops stickers as it takes.
I’m all for war, long as me and mine don’t have to fight it. Have a good Fat Tuesday everybody. Maybe the women on here can figure out a way to raise their shirts and show us their you-know-what’s. Tho I hope it ain’t Granny or Sister Dusty or some of the other members of the senior crowd here.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:44 am
Recon 9:31
“or would you prefer to make misinterpretations of what I think of General Dempsey?”
your 9:05: “Jay, doesn’t seem to understand the political pressures that are applied at that level and how some cave in to it only to preserve their careers. Dempsey, is reflecting the Obama administration policy that either continues to stick its head in the sand or is more concerned with the November election rather than facing up to the reality of what’s happening ”
Yeah, you pretty clearly said General Dempsey buckles to political pressure and tells Pres Obama what he thinks Pres Obama wants to hear, regardless of how he sees the world situation..
I think that’s called dereliction of his duty as CJCS and spinelessness.
But you see him as only an ‘armchair’ general -
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
9:45 am
It would appear that some on this blog fail to comprehend the nature of politics and its influence on what’s said in public by officials, however, in actuality it’s is only a one sided comprehension of the nature of politics and what’s said by officials.
Brosephus
February 21st, 2012
9:46 am
Recon
If I put a ban on you selling oil to my country one week, how would you stopping exports to my country later on upset oil supplies? If I’ve already banned the imports, I’ve already put the brakes on supplies myself. One would also think that the EU as made alternative arrangements to offset the loss of Iranian oil before they put a ban on imports. At least, I think common sense would dictate finding an alternative before shutting Iranian imports.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:47 am
Granny
“Are you suggesting that if President Obama plays “not nice” gas will get cheaper?”
Maybe Pres Obama should ask Newt for advice. Newt said yesterday if he were Pres we’d have Keystone pipeline and more permits and Gulf drilling and gas would drop to $2 or $2.50 a gallon.
He caught whatever Bachmann had.
Mighty Righty
February 21st, 2012
9:47 am
“Equally important, senior defense officials emphasize, while it’s clear that Iran aspires to nuclear technology, it is far from certain whether the country is intent on actually weaponizing this technology”
These people if they in fact exist, should be fired and repkaced with people who care about our security.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:49 am
Generation$crewed
“I’m not saying anyone should attack Iran.
Especially not us!”
Thanks for that. It’s always good on such forums to step back and ask “hold on… what’s the basic issue we’re discussing? I get glimpses of it on the walls of the vortex….”
Mighty Righty
February 21st, 2012
9:50 am
Obama takes money from Social Security, calls it a tax break, and spends that money plus on higher gasoline prices.
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
9:50 am
“I think that’s called dereliction of his duty as CJCS and spinelessness.”
Well Paul, if that’s what you call it I won’t try to misrepresent in a post your meaning as you’ve stated it pretty clearly.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:51 am
Joseph
“How will Obama spin this????”
He already has. When the last numbers came out. He said over the next few months unemployment would likely rise again.
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
9:53 am
Dear Paul @ 9:39, exactly right, “credibility” is the currency for leftists, “logic” is the currency for conservatives.
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
9:53 am
Paul
I still am curious as to how recon would answer that question.
Free gas if we bomb them?
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:55 am
Recon
Do you still think CJCS General Dempsey is an ‘armchair’ general who caves to political pressure to preserve his career and who says only whatever he thinks administration policy is?
We can put this to rest once and for all.
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
9:55 am
Redneck
Us senior ladies don’t have to raise them too high anymore…..
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:56 am
Granny
I’m still trying to figure out what he really thinks of General Dempsey.
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
9:57 am
Dear Paul @ 9:53, it is a two dimensional theory of governance. Leftists embrace credibility, without regard to logic, and conservatives embrace logic without regard to credibility. Leftists are always affirming that “this or that” speaker lacks credibility, without further exposition, and then are stunned that conservatives do not care about the allegation. Similarly we conservatives argue about a logical flaw or similar error in an affirmation by one with “credibility” are a saddened that seemingly-thinking leftists do not care. It is a difference in perspective.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:57 am
Granny
I’m betting it’s still higher than Redneck can get -
Paul
February 21st, 2012
9:58 am
ragnar
I pretty much reject arguments that look at things from a ‘they are all this’ and ‘we are all that’ perspective.
St Simons - we're on Island time
February 21st, 2012
9:58 am
what’ll be really funny is watching the Republi/Fox crowd turn into OWS
anti-war protesters, so we can call them smelly. so there
USMC
February 21st, 2012
9:59 am
“USMC: You do realize that he was taught to stand with your hands folded when he was a child in Hawaii, don’t you? Criticize the adult who taught him, not the President. When this was brought to his attention, he changed it. This is old stuff. Get over it!”–Road Scholar
LOL! Now we know why you are ROAD scholar and not RHODES scholar.
I don’t know which is dumber; a Senator RUNNING for President who doesn’t know to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem or Rhodes Scholar’s unintelligent response to justified ridicule of the fact.
The sheer ignorance and lack of intelligence displayed daily on this blog by the Bolshevik “wannabes” make for hilarious comic relief!
Generation$crewed
February 21st, 2012
9:59 am
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
9:55 am
Way to early for that kind of a mental image.
As long as you don’t need to take off ur belt to show them. if thats the case they should remain hidden
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
10:02 am
GS
Darling, things alot worse happen earlier.
Stiffen up that spine big fella.
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
10:04 am
Paul
I think he is too.
I still waiting to hear if he thinks
playing nasty will make gas cheaper.
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
10:04 am
“If I put a ban on you selling oil to my country one week, how would you stopping exports to my country later on upset oil supplies? If I’ve already banned the imports, I’ve already put the brakes on supplies myself. One would also think that the EU as made alternative arrangements to offset the loss of Iranian oil before they put a ban on imports. At least, I think common sense would dictate finding an alternative before shutting Iranian imports.”
Brosephus, You’ll need to sell your argument to the folks who study the worldwide oil markets and convince them that the spike in oil prices have nothing to do with Iran and most recently its announcement that it would no longer export to France and the U.K. Keep in mind that even announcements have an effect on the price of oil. You may recall back in 08 when gasoline rose to $4.00 dollars per gallon, Bush announced that he would increase domestic drilling which he did. Prices fell significantly and some say that by announcing the increase in drilling permits caused oil prices to decrease. I’m not the expert but I listen to what they say.
Mick
February 21st, 2012
10:04 am
But…but…didn’t the president get bin laden and keep us safe the past four years? I trust him to handle iran in the most intelligent way possible, instead of shooting from the hip…
ragnar danneskjold
February 21st, 2012
10:05 am
Dear Paul @ 9:58, I know, I lack credibility.
The Snark
February 21st, 2012
10:05 am
Hmmmm … one group beats the war drums, claiming an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, while ignoring the quiet voices of experts warning that there is no such threat …
Where have I heard this song before?
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
10:05 am
Paul
Re: How high RC can get.
Think stepladders.
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
10:07 am
“We can put this to rest once and for all.”
Paul, it has been put to rest. Enjoy your day.
Jefferson
February 21st, 2012
10:08 am
You can’t sell gas for $6 a gallon if nobody will pay $6 a gallon or don’t have the money to buy it, but as long as enough do, well there you are. What have you done (open question) to save gas ?
Jefferson
February 21st, 2012
10:09 am
There is no supply problem, but huge demand.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
10:10 am
ragnar
Nope. I’m just not much on dividing people(s) into groups with neat little one-size-applies-to-all, mutually exclusive labels.
Granny
I was thinking more along the lines of his comment about… ahem… womanly physical attributes and how high t-shirts have to go to reveal them…. it’s still way higher than his… ahem… manly physical attribute can get.
Paul
February 21st, 2012
10:12 am
Recon
Not a ‘yes’ I think that or a ‘no’ I don’t think that.
Or even ‘this is what I think of General Dempsey.’
Just a ‘I already answered…”
yeah Recon, you did -
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
10:15 am
Recon
You exited stage right before you answered my question?
0311/1811
February 21st, 2012
10:19 am
JAY:
Two words:
“NEVER AGAIN”
Recon 0311 2533
February 21st, 2012
10:20 am
Granny, No offense intended but I can’t answer everyone and as much fun as it is I can’t spend the full day on a blog. You enjoy your day as well.
Road Scholar
February 21st, 2012
10:21 am
USMC: I heard the President say this himself. So it’s wrong? I’m unintelligent because of it? Poor baby!
Adam
February 21st, 2012
10:22 am
This crap Santorum is spewing is making my head spin more than normal. I may be looking for a break from the blog and political shows for a bit. Especially since it’s just ad infinitum radical nonsense from the right about contraception and theology, then the left and main stream engages them on both of those issues, avoiding other issues. Congrats, Repubs, you have control of the conversation again, with a LOSING ISSUE. But it’s enough for me to want to just hermit for a couple of days.
0311/1811
February 21st, 2012
10:22 am
Breaking News:
Santorum Announces the 2012 Launch of “European Americans for Santorum” !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjoHA5ocwU&feature=youtu.be
Jefferson
February 21st, 2012
10:24 am
A word to the GOP on Santorum, “Go for It”
0311/1811
February 21st, 2012
10:27 am
This happened in Afghanistan but f you want to wonder why negotiating with Iran is useless:
Headline: “The US commander of Nato troops in Afghanistan has apologised over reports that foreign troops had “improperly disposed” of copies of the Koran.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17110079