The young men charged with plotting terrorist attacks against Canadian targets were allegedly planning two separate strikes -- one to detonate a truck bomb to destroy a significant building and the other to open fire on a crowd in a public place, the National Post has learned.

The conspirators were allegedly concentrating their efforts on their assigned missions and were in an advanced state of planning when authorities moved to arrest the men last weekend, sources said.

The national security component of the huge investigation was code-named Operation Claymore by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada's spy agency, which was on specific alert as its office at the base of the CN Tower was allegedly among the list of prime targets.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8d8b0e88-b576-4438-88a8-da96912f7402&k=70820

Posted by: storagemanager at June 6, 2006 2:56 PM

If you harbour a terr.....nevermind....still thinking of the 243 Marines with unloaded guns murdered by Iran who died in Vain... Not Just President bush..every President from 1979 till today as let the free world down!

Posted by: storagemanager at June 6, 2006 3:04 PM

Did Iran agree to this or is this just a proposal?

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at June 6, 2006 3:06 PM

Had he been elected, Kerry's brilliance would have been revealed for all to see:

"I voted for pandering to you in the most craven manner and wanted to supply you with treats and treasures... Until I decided not to."

Posted by: jsla at June 6, 2006 3:08 PM

The problem is not Islamic extremism. The problem is Islam. Many modern writers have condemned Islamic extremism but have gingerly avoided criticising Islam itself. They claim that the terrorists have hijacked Islam and misinterpret its “peaceful message”. This book refutes this claim and shows that the root cause of Islamic violence is the Quran, the Hadith (traditions) and the Sunna (the examples set by Muhammad).

Islam must be defined by its most violent, extremist, reactionary, intolerant, anti-western and misogynistic elements, both Sunni and Shi’a. Sufism, the so called reformist and non violent version of Islam, is not really that much different from extremist Islam.

ALI SINA...........http://www.faithfreedom.org/book2.htm

Posted by: storagemanager at June 6, 2006 3:20 PM

It's all because the administration desires a "multilateral" approach to Tehran.

Once GW went looking for allies, once he went looking international "support," once he went to the United Nations, the IAEA, the UNSC, then we were destined to offer everything and anything to get some face saving "deal."

I'm not interested in deals, nor sweeteners.

I'm not even so much interested in obliterating the Manhattan Project as I'm interested in killing off the mullah leadership in Tehran.

They're the target. Get rid of them, and you've gone a long way towards "solving" the problem.

What GW is doing is everything that the libs have asked. And when that too proves insufficient, he'll be on the verge of leaving office.

So he intends to do nothing really, except follow the advice of the global elite, and he's going to deliver this entire problem over to his successor.

He's had enough. He's lost whatever appetite he ever had for military engagement with the forces of jihad. He's hanging on in iraq, but he hasn't any interest in seeing this conflict move to the next "phase."

We need to be mindful of the enormous pressure the elites are putting on him.

He would have to be a superman or a Churchill to be able to withstand it, let alone prevail against it.

It's easy for us along the sidelines to propose courses of action. We don't have the NYT and the rest of the elite battling us every step of the way.

He can't even clean house within the CIA and State. That's how much control they have in Washington.

Posted by: Dan at June 6, 2006 3:20 PM

Let's not confuse nuclear fuel - Kerry's plan - and nuclear technology - the Bush plan. Here, via Vital Perspective:

We suspect that there will soon be confusion between nuclear technology, which is the carrot du jour, and nuclear fuel. Nuclear fuel is fissionable materials that have been enriched to such a composition that, when placed in a nuclear reactor, will support a self-sustaining fission chain reaction, producing heat in a controlled manner for process use. By contrast, nuclear technology is technology that involves the reactions of atomic nuclei. It has found applications from smoke detectors to nuclear reactors, and from gun sights to nuclear weapons.
Certainly, any nuclear technology the U.S. would provide Iran if the regime ended enrichment and reprocessing activities would be limited to civilian energy applications. For example, in the U.S. deal to provide India with nuclear technology, it was noted in the Washington Post that under the terms, India "would have access, for the first time, to conventional weapons systems and to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology that can be used in either a civilian or a military program." It is clear from this that the U.S. has the obvious capability to determine what nuclear technology can be used for civilian energy purposes, and what nuclear technology can be used for a weapon. Remember, the international position is that Iran has a right to civil nuclear energy.

Let's also bear in mind that the odds of Iran agreeing to stop uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities and implementing the Additional Protocol of the NPT is about nil.

Posted by: ajveros at June 6, 2006 3:44 PM

It is possible for two people or two parties or two countries to desire the same thing, but for entirely different reasons, and with different assumptions, and for different goals.

Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin both wished to defeat Hitler -- for different reasons, with different assumptions, for different goals.

Or, to take an example involving the less exalted, both I and one Anis Altikriti in London (the name "Altikriti" goes back to before the Conquest) want the Infidel troops to withdraw from Iraq. He wants them to withdraw because he is confident that the side he wishes to win (I assume he is a Sunni, and with roots in you-know-where) will win, despite the Shi'a advantage in numbers. I want those Infidels to withdraw so that the Sunni-Shi'a fight can go on, at low or high levels, for a very long time, and draw in supporters from co-religionists abroad, and I would also like it if, while the Arabs are occupied with each other, the Kurds declare their independence and are aided, diplomatically and with military equipment, by the Americans, who can run interference with Turkey (that part of it is what makes American policymakers blanch -- they just can't face having to do this, but do this they should and it will not be the insuperable problem, if handled correctly, that is assumed).

Both the present Administration, and Kerry in 2004, appear to be offering Iran the same thing. But it may not be done in the same spirit, for the same ultimate goals, with the same attitudes and calculations.

Possibly one should wait just a bit, and see how this plays out. The time to howl will be in the third week of January 2009, if the Iranians have not by that time have been dealt with as they must be, one way or another, and by this Administration -- for Iran, not Iraq, was always the more important matter.

Posted by: Hugh at June 6, 2006 3:46 PM

"(Seriously, can the Bush Administration sink any lower? Is it suffering from such a paucity of ideas that it has to adopt those of its defeated opponent, and from such dhimmitude that it cannot bear to consider any path but appeasement?)"

Robert - Suppose that you and Hugh were magically transported into the office of President/vice president of the US. Given the present state of affairs what policies and actions would you implement if you had carte blanche from all leadership including the UN? Just curious.

Posted by: Thumper at June 6, 2006 3:49 PM

To all those who love Bush...Conservative Hero...Christian Man...Texas man...True American Hero...War President...etc

Too you I say!

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

No doubt those who still support the man will say..

"Its a plan to get into Iran..to overthrow the government...The story is yet to be told...you have to know the Karl Rove handshake to understand.." etc.

"Seriously, can the Bush Administration sink any lower?" posted by Robert

YES! It is a endless pit if incompetence. He is getting into Jimmy Carter territory in terms of bad presidents.....true greatness!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 6, 2006 3:55 PM

The very act of discussing anything with the mullahs offends me.

Every breath they take is an insult to me.

They should have been killed years ago.

We only participate in our own humilation by even considering the idea of "negotiations" with them.

The time for discussion is over. Every administration since Carter has tried in good faith to get along with the mullahs. And they've tried to coax the mullahs in to rough conformity with international standards of behavior. All to no avail. As for the "grand bargain" that guys like Thomas P. Barnett propose, Clinton offered it, repeatedly.

It was refused.

It's time for us to stop pretending that all of those previous diplomatic efforts hadn't been made.

And that's not even considering all the diplomatic overtures made by the Europeans.

The mullahs are intent on jihad. So be it.

We should be intent on killing them.

And we shouldn't be apologetic about it.

Posted by: Dan at June 6, 2006 3:59 PM

Why would Iran be scared of America?....they killed 243 marines and we packed up and went home....Of course they feel we will do the same again....you can not stop a school yard bully by shaking a finger at him...you must punch him in the nose....thats just a fact.

Posted by: storagemanager at June 6, 2006 4:02 PM

What needs to be done - I want it done but I don't want Bush to do it because ANYTHING he does turns to compromised, ineffectual floundering dressed up in spin.

Does Bush have any conception what tremendous efforts of mind and will it would take for him to even reach the point of mediocrity?

Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 6, 2006 4:18 PM

I agree with a poster above who suggests we should wait and see. While the BBC cheerleads the fact that the US has been worn down by those who should know better:

US adopts 'soft power' with Iran
By Roger Hardy
Middle East analyst, BBC News

In a significant shift of policy, the United States is offering to join Europe in talks with Iran on its nuclear programme, if Tehran suspends enrichment of uranium....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5048136.stm

my understanding is that there is a very short time horizon on this offer. While we know the Muslim rogues are adept at dragging these kinds of things out ad infinitum, and especially so when they're sitting across from toothless old dogs, I don't think the US has the patience of Job or the religious reverence for "soft power" so beloved by some.

Posted by: jsla at June 6, 2006 4:19 PM

See? I told you the Democrats were way ahead of the Republicans on this jihad thingy! Kerry proposed submitting to Allah's will back in October 2004, and Bush is only getting around to it in June 2006.

Posted by: special_guest at June 6, 2006 5:47 PM

I dont know what happened to Bush. He doesnt realize why his poll numbers are low. He is believing the press who thinks its because he is a right wing conservative. He has completely betrayed his base. that is the real reason.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 6, 2006 6:10 PM

Dan said

Every administration since Carter has tried in good faith to get along with the mullahs.

I remember Carter's attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. The helicopters tried to land in the desert, kicked up a bunch of sand which reduced visibility to zero, and then they collided with each other in the confusion.

If that mission had been carried out with the knowledge of how to operate in the desert (which we've obviously learned since then), it could have been the first U.S. military strike against the jihad since "the Shores of Tripoli" in 1801 and 1815.

As it was, the Iranian hostages was one of the biggest success stories of the jihad to that point. Bringing the Great Satan to its knees (and controlling the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election) greatly encouraged the jihadists, which was followed by the victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Posted by: special_guest at June 6, 2006 6:13 PM

Special Guest, remember that soon as the mullahs obtained power, Carter tried diplomatic outreach PRIOR to the seizure of the embassy and the taking of the hostages.

EVEN AFTER the seizure, Carter still tried to make nice, which was why the whole drama unfolded as it did.

And if you remember during the Reagan years, Reagan sent Bud McFarlane over to meet with the mullahs, and McFarlane even took over a chocolate cake, all in an attempt to make nice.

Every diplomatic effort has met with rebuff, scorn, mockery and humiliation.

And it's time for the mullahs to be violently sent to judgement.

I'm not interested in any discussion, nor sweeteners.

No more chances.

Death.

Posted by: Dan at June 6, 2006 7:29 PM

All this makes Ollie North's Arms for Hostages look so tame by comparison. Somehow I doubt he could do much worse than the administration is doing.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 6, 2006 7:47 PM

Jorge Al Bush Mohammad, and the rest of the globalists will literally kill us and our way of life. We so need leadership.

Posted by: Zebo at June 6, 2006 8:10 PM

Please Israel - Damn the topedoes full speed ahead! bomb Iran back to stone age (well that expression does'nt really work for islamic countries but you know what I mean)

Posted by: Zebo at June 6, 2006 8:20 PM

Stop vainly looking for the Israelis to bail our chestnuts out of it.

Washington has bluntly told Israel to do nothing, to stay out of it, and to allow all of these wonderful "multilateral" discussions to solve the problems.

Ultimately, the West is going to inform the Israelis that they will accept Tehran getting the bomb, and an industrial production line for many more bombs. They are going to tell the Israelis to take it, just like the West told Czechoslovakia to accept a fait accompli.

And Israel, under supreme pressure from Washington, will capitulate.

And then Tehran will get the bomb.

And that means that London, New York City, Washington, et al, are all on borrowed time.

Posted by: Dan at June 6, 2006 8:41 PM

"Washington has bluntly told Israel to do nothing, to stay out of it, and to allow all of these wonderful "multilateral" discussions to solve the problems."
-- from a posting above

The poster above may be horribly right. During the first Gulf War, in order not to offend "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, Israel was prevented from retaliating by Cheney himself, who showed little understanding or sympathy about the awful precedent being established when he pressured Moshe Arens.

The first victim of the mad regime -- mad north by northwest -- in Iran would be Israel. It is Israel, not the United States, that is faced with possible annihilation, and it is Israel that ought not to be asked by anyone, for no one has the moral right to do so, not to do whatever it sees fit to protect itself.

This administration, not being able or willing to extricate itself sensibly from Iraq, and then to see what effect that might have in concentrating minds and changing tunes in Iran, may be holding Israel back. One hopes that is not true. For if it were to be true, and if the Israelis did not take the measures they took against the Osirak reactor, to the greater good of the entire Infidel world (and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would be of far greater benefit to that Infidel world), and if Iran acquired those weapons and indifferent to retaliation because for them it may be worth it, hastening the return of the Mahdi, and in any case, it it is to be, it is to be, because Allah wills it and Allah knows best, used those weapons, then what is already a fiasco -- tarbaby Iraq -- would be the cause of the greatest moral failure in the history of the United States. And with affects both intolerable and incalculable on the morale of the Western world.

Posted by: Hugh at June 6, 2006 8:50 PM

I am hoping Isreal sees thier imminent peril and remembers their last 1400 years of persecution by the "religion of peace" that's all. In otherwords look out for thier citizens not US wishes or, sad to say, US troops on the ground in Iraq. It's all or nothing for Israel while US citizens are realtivly immume to the nuclear tipped mullas mainly because ICBM tech is so hard. Plus the way we appease and kill off thier sunni rivals for them we serve a purpose, for now.

Posted by: Zebo at June 6, 2006 9:28 PM

The poster above may have horribly omitted the fact that, rather than behaving cravenly as he implies, America dedicated most of it's helicopter and air resources for the Western Deserts of Iraq seeking out the Scuds. Israel was assured that if any WMD landed, all bets were off and the rumble could begin.

Such selective memory from one whose memory usually overflows with interesting tidbits is interesting.

Posted by: jsla at June 6, 2006 10:12 PM

Since there is no longer a political party that will represent the people that voted them into office, then it is time for a new political party.

We should have a Federalist Party. Literal translation of the Constitution, black is black and white is white, National security is actually securing your nation. What simple concepts.

Yahoo "Federalist". It is already a growing group. How long would it take to get them on the ballot? I vote for John Bolton or Federalist Supreme Court Roberts.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at June 6, 2006 10:16 PM

It could also be that GHWB is giving some talking points to Condi and W. He also wants to protect his place in history: what better way to ensure good Bush contracts in the future than by enabling the Iranians. Of course, the genie resists being squeezed back into the Crest Tube. This is Scowcroft, Condi, Baker and GHWB--but in the post 911, post Dubai Port Works world--that dog ain't going to hunt. Just when you thought the US couldn't sink lower. All the bs talk about 'real politik' by 'negotiating' with the Iranians, rewarding them, will it aid us. We, W's stooges, are counting on the Iranians to say no--hell no--we won't talk, but what if the Iranians 'bite.' What if they make nice smilie faces, sure, give us the aid. Just what we need--first aiding Iraq, not Iran? And of course, we can trust what is going on under the caves of Iran, deep down. We can trust them.

The guys who took are hostages, harbor Bin Laden's cronies(son), manufacture IED's, mucking up what they can in Iraq, aid Hizbullah, press forward on the gas and we reward it. I get physically sick listening to Condi.

Posted by: biorabbi at June 6, 2006 10:18 PM

Dan writes: "[Bush is] hanging on in Iraq, but he hasn't any interest in seeing this conflict move to the next phase."

Dan, you've got the wrong conjunction in your sentence. You should have said: "[Bush is] hanging on in Iraq, and therefore he hasn't any interest in seeing this conflict move to the next phase."

In other words, the main reason why Bush can't take on Iran (or do much else) is because he refuses to disengage from Iraq! Against all evidence to the contrary, Bush is still clinging to his theory that if "democracy" (whatever he thinks that means) comes to Iraq, it will be an existence proof that will inspire the whole Islamic world to demand peace, love and freedom for themselves.

And so, combined with the continuing guerrilla violence in Afghanistan, the U.S. is already fighting a two-front war. How many more fronts can our overstretched military take on?

When Bush keeps rejecting pleas even from Democrats to expand the size of our army and Special Forces, because he's been bamboozled by Rumsfeld's high-tech minimalism, you know that he's through as a competent Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 6, 2006 10:25 PM

jsla....

You must remember that we played the Dhimmi in the first Iraq invasion when it came to Isreal. Iraq said they were going to send Scuds into Isreal and Isreal said they would attack.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia stated that they would not be on the side of Isreal and that they would as well "surrender" to Saddam then be on the side with Isreal. They stated that Isreal in "no way" could militarily defend theirselves or Egypt and Saudi Arabia would expell the Western forces and surrender to fight against Isreal. The comments from Egypt and Saudi were very downplayed.

So, since Isreal could "in no way" defend theirselves it was our Patriot missile batteries, our Patriot missiles, our soldiers, our radars that defended Isreal. It was even revealed after the war that the Patriot missiles were very inaccurate and did not detonate even one Scud warhead. But the US and Isreali goverments said that it was necessary to play it out in the media as if they were successful so that the Isreali people did not rise up and demand a war, all why we acted like we were defending them.

I am still surprised that no one has every made an issue with the fact that Saudi Arabia wanted the US there but would surrender to not appear to be on the side of Isreal. And the only reason Egypt was there was because we bought them off by forgiving debt to the tune of $8 billion. They are still a whore, just a expensive one!

Posted by: alaskan1000 at June 6, 2006 10:29 PM

greatcometof1577 compared Bush to Jimmy Carter. Well, I wouldn't go that far. But I do feel betrayed. I supported Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq--but I became disillusioned when I saw the kind of war Bush was fighting there.

My original notion was that the U.S. should go into Iraq, capture Saddam and the top leadership, find all the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and dispose of them--and then we should just leave, before we risked getting caught in ethnic violence between Shi'a and Sunni. On a scale of priorities, we had more important things to do than bring "democracy" (whatever Bush thinks that means) to Iraq. We had to finish the job of putting al-Qaeda out of business and blow Osama's head off. We had to take on the Iranian mullahs and their nuclear program. Take on the Saudis on their duplicitous support for Wahhabist agitation in the West. Etc.

Well, we got Saddam and nearly all the top leadership. We found all the WMD there was (zero equals zero). So what are we still doing in Iraq?

Posted by: Steven L. at June 6, 2006 10:33 PM

greatcometof1577 writes:

To all those who love Bush...Conservative Hero...Christian Man...Texas man...True American Hero...War President...etc

Too you I say!

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

No doubt those who still support the man will say..

"Its a plan to get into Iran..to overthrow the government...The story is yet to be told...you have to know the Karl Rove handshake to understand.." etc.

"Seriously, can the Bush Administration sink any lower?" posted by Robert

YES! It is a endless pit if incompetence. He is getting into Jimmy Carter territory in terms of bad presidents.....true greatness!

LOL! Psssst......but hey....don't ya know that Dubya is the greatest Machiavellian genius since that prince guy started marketing perfume under his own name?....I mean this is all part of a grand strateeeegereee to deal with that stupid Mullah - just wait and see! He'll have those guys in turbans eatin' out of his hand in no time....because he' s POKER PLAYER, you see! Now i don't think I've heard of Karl Rove's secret handshake before - is that sort of like 'fisting'?

....and now for a moment of silence....

We should alway take care to never forget the full title of our Dear Leader: HRH Jorge Arbusto II "the Decider", Caudillo of Crawford, the Mahdi (and former Messiah) from West Texas, Opiate of the Conservatives, and supreme commandante of compassion everywhere.

What the heck, Kim Jong Il's already got a few newkewler-tipped missiles aimed at our heads, what's a few more from those madcap Mullahs? Perhaps dear leader decided that there was room for more than one Mahdi in the world at the same time after all!

Posted by: Carolus at June 6, 2006 11:14 PM

"Egypt and Saudi Arabia stated that they would not be on the side of Isreal and that they would as well "surrender" to Saddam then be on the side with Isreal. "

You're going to have to cite something to substantiate this malarky.

Anyway, what's a superpower to do? Call the whole thing off? I think it went quite swimmingly, given the players. Still, that's not to say that Kuwait should have gotten their plaything back, nor should be have "respected" the keepers of the holy sites nearly so much.

My esteem for Israel became a permanent fixture when they took those rockets and didn't retaliate. In addition, as much as I'm sometimes given to hyperbole, there is such a thing as proportionality. I think one Israeli died, and that was caused, if memory serves, not by a Scud, but by falling shrapnel from our Patriot missiles.

The scuds were duds. Besides, Israel knows where her bread is buttered. The Jews ain't no foos.

Posted by: jsla at June 6, 2006 11:23 PM

alaskan1000 said

Egypt and Saudi Arabia stated that they would not be on the side of Isreal and that they would as well "surrender" to Saddam then be on the side with Isreal.

Then let them surrender. If they cannot stomach the thought of having infidels assisting them, then so be it.

They would like us to believe that Islam is monolithic, that Muslims love their fellow Muslims, but the truth is they would never surrender power to Saddam or anyone else. These are exactly the sort of fissures that we should be encouraging, rubbing our fingers in. Let us watch what happens when we call their bluff, and it is time for them to submit to Saddam or any other secular leader.

We forced Israel to sit quietly as she was bombed night after night, just to paper over, to hide, the tribal emnities that we should have been exploiting. What an amusing thought, a secular pan-Arab nation. It would rip itself to shreds. The Worm Oroborous would eat itself and disappear.

Posted by: special_guest at June 6, 2006 11:44 PM

Carolus wrote: "What the heck, Kim Jong Il's already got a few newkewler-tipped missiles aimed at our heads,"

Remember when Kim Jong Il claimed he hit 11 holes-in-one on a golf course and it was his first time playing the game!!!!

Yes it is truly a battle of wits

Bush vs. Ahmadinejad

Of course the thing that helps Bush is Ahmadinejad and Iranian mullahs are not the brightest lights in the sky either. Ahmadinejad once claimed he "glowed" at the UN with mystical powers and the invisible Imam talks to him. He also has spent millions to prepare for the return of the Madi.......and still our leader seems to have problems coming up with a plan to deal with the "glowing one".

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 7, 2006 12:06 AM

Perhaps we will help him glow.

Posted by: jsla at June 7, 2006 12:16 AM

Steven L. !!!!!

I know its hard to come to this view.

but it is so true....

George W. Bush is the republican Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 7, 2006 12:33 AM

"Perhaps we will help him glow" jsla

Let us hope so....we can always dream right??

For tommorrow! tommorrow! there's always tommorrow...its just a day away...

something like that.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 7, 2006 12:38 AM

Steven L says: My original notion was that the U.S. should go into Iraq, capture Saddam and the top leadership, find all the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and dispose of them--and then we should just leave, before we risked getting caught in ethnic violence between Shi'a and Sunni. On a scale of priorities, we had more important things to do than bring "democracy" (whatever Bush thinks that means) to Iraq. We had to finish the job of putting al-Qaeda out of business and blow Osama's head off. We had to take on the Iranian mullahs and their nuclear program. Take on the Saudis on their duplicitous support for Wahhabist agitation in the West. Etc.

Well, we got Saddam and nearly all the top leadership. We found all the WMD there was (zero equals zero). So what are we still doing in Iraq?

---------------

I completly agree. Nothing wrong with taking down threats anytime and preferably all-the-time... cough cough IRAN!! Democracy is such a joke played on us, I can't beleive none of his advisors hav'nt told him: They don't care about "democracy" as we know it - if they do "get out the vote" it's OBL calibur types they want! Worst thing for us/israel/europe is the Sadr's now in power, Bush enabled. Given the "choice" they want, fundematalist crazy jihadists and those in country who do not comply are summarily executed! I have never seen such stupidity from the wilsonian doctrine before. It's sorta like if we invaded Germany in 1939, let them vote in Hitler again then built thier army for them! Crazyness.

Posted by: Zebo at June 7, 2006 12:43 AM

greatcometf1577:

"Bush vs. Ahmadinejad

Of course the thing that helps Bush is Ahmadinejad and Iranian mullahs are not the brightest lights in the sky either. Ahmadinejad once claimed he "glowed" at the UN with mystical powers and the invisible Imam talks to him. He also has spent millions to prepare for the return of the Madi.......and still our leader seems to have problems coming up with a plan to deal with the "glowing one".

But....don't you understand? Dear leader can surely seeeee into the glowing Mahdi's soooouuuuul, just like he did Putin's and Merkel's. I wonder if that glow in Koffi's romper-and-money-laundry room was newkewler in nature - you know, that rather sickly, putrid looking yellow-green color? Besides, two Mahdis really are better than one, don't you think? I can see a Nobel Peace Prize in the future!!

Like 'Ol Man River', the Arbusto hackocracy just keeps rollin' along. He truly is the Republican reincarnation of Jimmy Carter, who isn't even offically dead yet (despite the fact that his brain was cremated decades ago). Heck of a job, Bushie!

Posted by: Carolus at June 7, 2006 12:50 AM

Carolus, Poker? When you bluff and the other guy raises, you wind up looking foolish whatever you do next. See North Korea...We're still wondering what we got out of the deal.

Posted by: Zebo at June 7, 2006 1:11 AM

My earlier comment that Washington told the Israelis to do nothing about Tehran's Manhattan Project wasn't simply based upon the rememberance of what Washington told them during the first Gulf War.

No.

There have been reports in Israeli media that Olmert was told to do nothing. Olmert has broached the subject with Bush himself, and his immediate advisors. And Olmert was told to stay out of it.

And that's been reported in Israel.

This is no longer a matter of cojecture, reasoned speculation.

We now know that Washington is betting all on the diplomatic approach. And whatever anxiety that Tehran might have had that the Israelis would act independently, Washington has taken care of, by dictating policy to Jerusalem.

I'm pretty convinced that either Bush will deliver the whole nightmare over to his successor. OR, he'll accept some face saving "deal" that solves nothing. In fact, only heightens the danger, because the very existence of the "deal" will lead the West to believe that the threat has passed them by, when in fact, it is inexorably proceeding, only surrpetitiously.

Posted by: Dan at June 7, 2006 1:57 PM

Washington is scared of letting Tehran get the bomb.

Washington is scared of sending in our Air and Naval Air to stop them getting the bomb.

Washington is scared to death of upsetting China's economy, due to naval embargo, or air strikes, which would cause the price of crude to skyrocket.

Washington is scared of informing the American people of the brutal truth about the mullahs, and the rest of the regimes along the Gulf.

Washington is scared of seeing Tehran enter into a closer relationship with China.

Washington is scared of a course of action that leaves China no choice.

And Washington is truly scared of the media outrage if we sent in our Air and Naval Air.

FEAR. Mind numbing, soul-destroying fear is dictating policy in Washington.

Posted by: Dan at June 7, 2006 2:02 PM

Oh, and the result of all of these overpowering fears is PARALYSIS.

ABSOLUTE PARALYSIS.

And that's why we see discussions for the sake of discussions, negotiations trying to find a middle course between mutually exclusive outcomes.

It's rather squalid.

In short, it's the 1930s all over again.

Posted by: Dan at June 7, 2006 2:05 PM