A senior Pentagon official was quoted by ABC News as saying there is "an increased likelihood" that Israel will carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of the year.

I suppose the so-called Pentagon official is telegraphing this to the world because ... it's going to be a sneak attack? Sure.

The Pentagon is concerned such an attack would have massive defense-related and economic repercussions for the US and the world.

And the "morning after plans" include exactly what? Suspension of the US Constitution? Or should we expect "tougher gun laws" and elaboration of the "patriot act?"

The top official said the move could prompt Iranian retaliation against the United States in addition to Israel.

"Could prompt?" Really? You think? Gee, I'm sure glad we have rocket scientist thinking about all this -- you know, it never would have occurred to me.

It kind of reminds me of the weekend before 9/11 at the WTC when the power was out to the whole building and people were "installing wiring for the new internet connections."

Somethings up.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 9:11 AM

Secretary of State, Condelesa Rice, has spoken of the "boiling frog" strategy for handling Iran. The frog is put into cool water and slowly the temperature is brought to boil to keep the frog in the pot.

I am sure that Israel feels more like the frog than Iran right now. Clearly, the "frog" strategy on Iran is not working.

Israel needs to protect themselves in whatever way they see fit. The rest of the world should have no say when millions of Israeli lives are at stake.

Posted by: Spot on at July 1, 2008 9:31 AM

"Pentagon: Israel may attack Iranian nuke sites before 2009"

And the whole point of giving out this info is ? I mean, are these guys hoping that the mad mullahs of iran will run scared and shut down their nuclear program ?

Crude's crossed $140. One saudi minister has given the target of $250, though another one says $170 by the end of this year. At the current rate, we will hit 170 in the next month itself.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 1, 2008 10:03 AM

witness wrote

"It kind of reminds me of the weekend before 9/11 at the WTC when the power was out to the whole building and people were "installing wiring for the new internet connections."

Pardon me????

Posted by: gymgal at July 1, 2008 10:16 AM

Secretary of State, Condelesa Rice, has spoken of the "boiling frog" strategy for handling Iran. The frog is put into cool water and slowly the temperature is brought to boil to keep the frog in the pot.

In order to do that, you must be in control of the frog to begin with. How do you 'put' the frog anywhere if you are not in 'possession' of it first?
Rice's strategy is flawed...Iran is 'out' of control. Refuses to be controlled. The only answer for Iran is a collar, a leash and obedience training. It must learn to sit and stay, and not to bark or bite. I don't want to give the mad mullahs or Beasty Boy Ahmadinejad too much credit, but they 'are' smarter than frogs. But they 'can' learn to heel, Allah willing, and he always is...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 1, 2008 10:27 AM

Bolton: Israel will strike if Obama elected

A provocative statement if ever there was one. Not that: Israel will strike after the elections and before the new president takes office.

I love John Bolton but veiled threats like this one don't help the GOP. They are counter-productive. And what if McCain is elected? The great anti-jihadist, otherwise known as George W. Bush, wasn't able to prevent Iran's nuclear program from moving ahead. Does Bolton think McCain can?

As for the Arabs: private congratulations and public denunciations are no longer acceptable. This isn't the Cold War, Ambassador Bolton. It's time to stop winking.

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 10:29 AM

The giving of time-lines may be just a tactic to keep Iran's defenses down so the attack, which will be launched before any of those given dates, has a better chance of success.

Let's not be so cynical. Perhaps they're setting Iran up for a sucker-punch.

Posted by: undaunted at July 1, 2008 10:38 AM

On NPR Terri Gross, who annoys (her voice, her inquiring mind that is usually so unwell-stocked, her misstatements, her brisk bright self-assured everything), had on Seymour Hersh. Hersh was himself, full of half- and quarter-truths, and essentially, as he relayed the dark dark amazing fantastic secret that the American government was "making plans to attack Iran" -- any American government that had not made "plans to attack Iran" would have been guilty of a monstrous dereliction of duty -- and, it went apparently without saying, this was a terrible thing, a thing that had to be exposed -- by the likes of one Seymour Hersh (for more on Hersh and his track record, google "Seymour Hersh" and "Rael Isaac"). Not a single question from Terri Gross about why such an attack should not be planned, or why such an attack would be not only justified, but be at least as sensible as was the attack on the Osirak Reactor by Israel in 1981, or as would have been an attack by the French military, when it was still strong, on Germany (when it was not yet strong enough) in 1936, when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland (the Saar) and thereby broke Germany's commitments under the Versailles Treaty.

No, it was merely a given, a donnee, that any attack on Iran would be a Bad Thing, because....well, because.

And to make sure that no one listening would be able to think otherwise, Terri Gross kept referring not to an attack on Natanz and other sites of nuclear significance, but to "regime change." This phrase "regime change" evoked, was meant to evoke, the colossal folly and expense of the Iraq venture, with its sentimental messianism, its attempt to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East --"ordinary moms and dads" of course, who were and are Muslim, which makes the whole enterprise impossible as long as Islam remains....Islam.

Seymour Hersh, endlessly dishonest, did nothing to correct Gross's gross error. He might have said, in all of his sly whisperings about "my sources in the Pentagon tell me" (which sources are those? Oh, it's the tribe of Odomites, named after the recently late Lt. Gen. William Odom, who insisted, in Brzezinski-fashion, that nothing could be done to stop Iran's nuclear weapons except forcing Israel to give up its own nuclear weapons. In other words, the only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons would be, the recently-late Lt. Gen. (ret'd.) William Odom argued, would be to have Israel commit suicide. Among "my sources" -- as Hersh calls them -- in the government are those who share that kind of view, and are insufficiently alarmed by Iran, or perhaps, as with some (there are always some) actually pleased with the idea of putting the blame for it all on Israel for selfishly to have acquired nuclear weapons itself, or...let's face it, even for existing.

The American government needs to emphasize that the folly of Iraq will never be repeated. There will be no occupation, no goddam "regime change," no nothing in Iran except, from on high (what the hell are ICBMs for?), with missiles and planes, and repeated strikes, all over the place, to do one thing and one thing only: get rid of Iran's deadly science project. The amount of bombing this would require is likely beyond Israel's ability. It is grotesque to expect a country that size to continue, again and again -- with Osirak in 1981, with that site in Syria a few months ago -- and yet again, to do the work that, while Israel would naturaly benefit, would also benefit the entire Western world (not to mention, in the long run, the people of Iran) and, indeed, the entire Infidel world.

The American government alone has the power to do this right. And because Israel is very small, and in the permanent neighborhood of Iran, it is cruel to demand that Israel sacrifice its entire future relations with Iran because the Americans themselves did not do, were inhibited about doing, what they should.

If Israel alone attacks Iran, and destroys or damages significantly the nuclear project, the Iranians will simply start to rebuild. And many Iranians, including those who hate the Islamic Republic, will nonetheless, in their patriotic anxiety, in the perceived attack on national amour-propre, not be able to forgive Israel. And that would be a pity, for Israel and for all Infidels, and even for advanced Iranians, because in the future, both Israel and Iran would do well to move closer together, as they were, out of self-interest and the cultivation of the memory of Persian-Jewish relations in pre-Islamic times.

Suppose, for example, that the Islamic Republic of Iran is overthrown. Suppose, somehow, that there is a mood, among the most advanced of Iranians, those who have endured the Islamic Republic of Iran, and those who, in exile, have watched, and learned more about the West, and had occasion to think more deeply about the history of Iran, its pre-Islamic past, the non-Islamic elements in the present, and the possiblity of minimizing the role of Islam in Iranian life, and even helping to turn people away from Islam altogether.

Such people could benefit from an advanced economic and military non-Islamic power, a potential ally, in the neighborhood, and that power is Israel. But if Israel is left to do what must be done, to shoulder the whole burden (and then of course, to be denounced at the U.N., the E.U., and by a secretly delighted Arab League, full of Sunni states who will, nonetheless, hiding their glee at Iran's setback, now piously call for the "de-nuclearization of warmongering mad-dog Israel"), then the possibility of a post-Islamic Republic rapprochement between Iran, under the pahlevis and hoveydas or at least bakhtiars of yore, and Israel, will be most unlikely.

The business in Iraq was the wrong business. It was, as I wrote above, sentimental messianism. There was no understanding of the difficulties that the removal of Saddam Hussein, like Nuri es-Said a "strongman" whose ruthlessness was the only thing that, for example, held "the turbans" down and thereby protected the Christians, would lead -- not possibly, not as a result of this error by Garner or that one by Bremer but, given the pre-existing fissures that opened up as soon as Saddam Hussein was removed, appeared, inevitably and inexorably widening further, because that is the nature of the sectarian and the ethnic divide within Iraq, and within the larger Camp of Islam.

But looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was not an error, as long as it was based on well-founded fears. Whether the fears were well-founded, or whether a cleverer set of people would have understood that Saddaam Hussein was pretending to have weaponry not to fool the Americans, but to fool the much more dangerous -- so he thought -- Iranians, is another matter.

But about the Islamic Republic of Iran there is no doubt. The regime has been plowing men, money, and effort into producing nuclear weapons. Its current rulers seem prepared to be undeterred byu the principle of deterrence. They relish the prospect of wiping out Israel, and becoming the Heroes (First Class) of the Muslim World, and who knows -- perhaps turning Sunnis into Shi'a, as they have been doing in Iraq over the past century, and are now attempting the same kind of missionary work in Syria. What better way to become King of the Muslim Hill then to be willing to sacrifice, just a little, to wipe out, Iago-like, the humiliation that Israel's existence means for so many Muslims, one made worse, not better, by Israel's obvious advances, political, economic, and above all civilizational. That tiny country, say the Islamic Iagos, "hath a daily beauty in its life that makes mine ugly."

Besides, recovery of lands once possessed by Islam is at the top of the Muslim To-Do List. But don't worry, dear reader. For whatever country you come from in this wide world, that country is on that Muslim To-Do list, too. Just a little lower down.

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2008 10:40 AM

witness wrote

"It kind of reminds me of the weekend before 9/11 at the WTC when the power was out to the whole building and people were "installing wiring for the new internet connections."

Pardon me????

Posted by: gymgal at July 1, 2008 10:16 AM

Goofy things were going on a week or so before the event WTC; event happens; leaves a lot of people wondering ever since.

In any case, all we have to show for it is the partiot act lots of questions about our remaining freedoms.

This grand announcement is "goofy" in the same context as all the dust that covered the furniture on several floors at the WTC just about every morning in the weeks prior to 9/11, not to mention the power outage in both towers the weekend prior. (Go ahead, check it out.)

As for this situation; of course there will be a war and soon; does anyone in their right mind expect peace in the Middle East?

The only question that remains is the eventual morning after and what happens then -- I believe there is the real story that is on the story-boards even as we speak.

As the man said:

The Pentagon is concerned such an attack would have massive defense-related and economic repercussions for the US and the world.

He or she is telling us something -- we'd better be listening. What I am wondering about is just what do they have in mind?

Newsmax Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/franks_martial.htm

What was that? "Nutcase! Nutcase!" you say?

Calm down. Now, check out the four stars on the lapel -- Tommy Franks was a General in the US Army.

It was he who uttered those words, not I. So, when I hear Pentagon officials talking the way they are talking in the opening of this thread, I begin to wonder about a few things.

Now conclusions drawn yet, but do ask me about two days after the anticpated salvo.

In any case, two stogies and a Budweiser say that Syria or Hizballa strikes Isreal first on behalf of Iran.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 11:06 AM

If Obama is elected I can see the Israelis getting desperate and attacking Iran.

Maybe its his attending a church for 23 years that preached racism, black separatism, that has deep ties to the virulent anti-semitic Nation of Islam. Maybe its his friendship with Chicago's modern day father Coughlin - Reverend Pfleger. Maybe its his friendship with various Muslims who have connections with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Maybe its his inability to fight for anything other than his own ambition.

Not to mention the guy who called the Muslim call to prayer one the most beautiful thing he ever heard.

Hell if I was a Israeli I'd be terrified of a Obama presidency.

Posted by: waltc at July 1, 2008 11:33 AM

"The American government needs to emphasize that the folly of Iraq will never be repeated. There will be no occupation, no goddam "regime change," no nothing in Iran except, from on high (what the hell are ICBMs for?), with missiles and planes, and repeated strikes, all over the place, to do one thing and one thing only: get rid of Iran's deadly science project."

Would that be likely to work? Most of their nuclear facilities are said to be installed underground, so I find it doubtful whether they could be permanently destroyed without ground troops. I understand that Americans are unwilling to support a major operation against Iran because of the disaster in Iraq, but I'm afraid that airstrikes will at best delay the Iranian bomb.

Posted by: plumberger at July 1, 2008 11:34 AM

Hell if I was a Israeli I'd be terrified of a Obama presidency.
Posted by: waltc

I am sure that they are, and will act appropriately,
or inappropriately, but they will act...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 1, 2008 11:39 AM

Hugh,
You would have justified "an attack by the French military, when it was still strong, on Germany (when it was not yet strong enough) in 1936, when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland (the Saar) and thereby broke Germany's commitments under the Versailles Treaty."

Regardless of how it turned out, wasn't this part of the rationale for going into Iraq - attack before the sanctions broke down completely and before Saddam got to rebuild his own nuclear program and while he was still relatively weak, all because of Saddam's failure to abide by commitments he made after the Gulf War? How did Saddam keep Iran in check AFTER the no-fly zones were instituted? He needed oil-for-food. Iran was pretty much free to operate, wasn't it?

If the Iranian people who claim to oppose their own regime and want good relations with the West will turn on Israel in the wake of an attack on the nuclear sites then what would make them want to be Israel's ally? And where is the difference if the US attacked the nuclear program? The patriotic gene kicks in and the mullahs become Iran's favorite sons again and the US becomes the evil one, even among Iranians who claim they support the US.
The Shah is gone. Those days are gone and will never come again. The Cold War made Iran a US ally. Most Arab countries, Iraq included, were Soviet allies. Despite our support for them during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq never really became an American ally. Iran will never again be a trusted Israeli or American ally, mullahs or no. If an attack on a nuclear program run by a regime that Iranians themselves claim they would like to be rid of renders even a post-Islamic rapprochement with Israel unlikely then the same must hold true for the US. Israel is only the little Satan. We are the great Satan. Given recent history we would be foolish to accept any overtures of friendship from even a post-Islamic Iran for decades. It might take as much as a century for all the wounds on both sides to heal completely.

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 11:44 AM

Obama is supposed to visit Israel very soon.

We really need to lay down the law to Russia and tell them to stop selling this crap to crazy people. They want another Cold War? Fine. Screw 'em.

Posted by: Bingo at July 1, 2008 11:46 AM

From a posting above

and had occasion to think more deeply about the history of Iran, its pre-Islamic past

Soon thinking about the pre-Islamic past, as what is left is disappearing fast

Culturecide of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Thursday, 26 June 2008
The intolerant monolithic Islamists are on the march, lashing out with fury at non-Islamic people and cultures. This cult of violence and death spares neither the living nor the non-living heritage of humanity: wherever and whenever it can it commits culturecide—wiping out other people’s precious cultural treasures. Not long ago, the Islamists’ destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan shocked the world and exposed the savage nature of this cult of violence depravity. Yet, much more destruction on a broad range is taking place in Iran under the direction of the Islamist theocrats.

The Islamist zealots ruling Iran for the past 30 years have undertaken a systematic campaign of endangering and destroying the cultural sites of pre-Islamic Iran, ignoring the numerous petitions and pleas of the Iranian people.

For one, blatantly rejecting the repeated appeals of individuals and organizations such as the International Committee to Save the Archeological Sites of Pasargad, the Islamic Republic proceeded with the construction of the Sivand Dam which went into operation on April 2007 by the order of the ruling Islamists’ point man, President Ahmadinejad.

What many experts have warned and feared has already come to pass. The inevitable elevation of humidity from the Sivand Dam has given rise to massive invasion of Cyrus the Great Mausoleum by lichen and fungi. Cracks have started to appear on the stonework of tomb of King Cyrus, humanity’s first author of the charter of human rights.

The building of the Sivand Dam by the Islamist government was launched under the pretext that it would be a boon for the farmers. Impartial experts, including expert geologists from the University of Shiraz, have countered with evidence to the exact opposite outcome. Farmers in the area had worked diligently for centuries and habilitated the originally salty soil. Water from the new dam is bound to make it the farmers’ bane by returning the soil to salinity once again, experts warned.

In order to discredit those who protested against constructing the ruinous dam, the Islamic Republic’s Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, who ironically heads the state culture and heritage organization, has claimed that groups "opposing the Islamic Republic" are behind the protests.

Mr. Rahim-Mashai who was appointed as the director of ICHTHO after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “elected” as the regime's new President said in a press conference in March 2006 that he had never heard of the Sivand Dam or the Bolaghi Valley. The Pasargad Heritage Foundation has filed a complaint against Mr. Mashai for a hearing on his intentional systematic endeavor to destroy ancient cultural treasures of the Iranian people.

The destructive effects of the Dam is also impacted the air quality of the area. According to Amir-Teimur Khosravi the Mayor of Pasargadae, "the level of humidity near the mausoleum of Cyrus the Great is so high that none of the Pasargadae's residents have ever experienced it before. There is constant flow of damp and humidity smells in the Pasargadae plains that are coming from Bolaghi Gorge. In the Southwest section of the mausoleum, which is considered the entrance to the archaeological site, the subterranean waters have surfaced and caused cracks to appear on the stonework.”

Khosravi continued, “Pasargadae has always been renowned for its clean and pleasant weather, but now, as a result of high levels of humidity produced from [the artificial lake behind] the Sivand dam, the area suffers from a sultry condition.”

Referring to the gorge, "it is far from here," said one of the government’s functionaries at the dam site, which is slowly filling up. "There will be no damage." People in the provincial capital Shiraz—renowned as being the capital of poets and beautiful roses, as well as for its imperial Persian ruins—have a different opinion. They say the project may increase humidity in the arid area near the city of Shiraz, which they believe could damage the limestone mausoleum of Cyrus the Great.

From its inception, the Islamic Republic has waged a systematic campaign of wiping out any and all cultural heritage and even joyous pre-Islamic festivals of the Iranian people: replacing Iranian’s traditional happy celebratory events such as Nowruz , Yalda, and many more with endless death-centered Islamic mourning. The Islamists aim to obliterate the Persian antiquities as well as any vestiges of the pre-Islamic Iran. They have put in charge inept puppets as archeology experts so that it would justify their terrorist action against Persian antiquities.

The illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a quisling foreign entity that has betrayed Iranian people, its tradition, its glorious pre-Islamic achievements, and is incessantly working against Iran’s national interest. Iran, under the stranglehold and machinations of these parasites, has been transformed, in less than three decades, to the lead perpetrator of all that is abhorrent to humanity.

Although the Islamic Republic’s record speaks dismally for itself, there are numerous reasons for its relentless campaign of cultural genocide. The Islamic regime's decision to slowly destroy Cyrus the Great tomb is in part motivated by the realization that the people revere King Cyrus for the just laws he instituted as well as his emancipation of the Jews some 2500 years ago. Hence, this benevolent king is despised by the Islamists for symbolizing what are truly Iranian and anathema to Islamic credo, as well as keeping the love of non-Islamic nationalism alive in the heart of the populace.

Under the guise of development, the Islamic Republic has launched a comprehensive program of obliterating any physical traces of Iran’s rich archeological sites. A partial list of these acts is listed below.

*Sahand Dam in East Azerbaijan which will submerge the 6000-year-old Kul Tepe site. Archaeologists agree that over ten ancient sites in the region, some from the fifth millennium B.C. will be buried under the water, according to an official of the East Azerbaijan Province Cultural Heritage and Tourism Department.

*Alborz Dam in Mazandaran province, which caused irreversible damage to the cultural heritage of the eastern part of Mazandaran province.

*Karun Dam in Khuzestan province is submerging the ancient sites of the Izeh region.

* Mulla Sadra Dam to Drown 7000 Years of History. “Mehr Ali Farsi is one of the most important archeological sites of Fars province. Archeological excavations in this historical site could reveal many unknown facts about the pre-historic period of Fars province. “Despite the fact that this historical site had been identified before the inundation of Mulla Sadra Dam, the authorities of the dam have neglected the necessity for carrying out excavations in this area and started the flooding of the dam in a very short time,” according to Azizollah Rezayi, head of archeology team in Mehr Ali Farsi historical site.

*Salman-e Farsi Dam was inundated in 2007, without the CHTHO’s permission. It flooded a 350-hectare Sassanid city, which had been inhabited since the pre-Achaemenid era.

*Destruction of one of the biggest historical sites in the Chahar-Mahal Bakhtiari province by the Islamic Republic Ministry of Road and Transportation. A local archaeologist who wished to remain anonymous for his safety said: "Israel should not be worried about the [Islamic] regime's threat of wiping it off from the map; it is we [Iranians] who should be worried, as the regime is determined to wipe us off of the map."

He added "everyday this anti-Iranian regime is coming up with a new plot to destroy our heritage. One day our heritage is being threatened by dam projects, the next it’s road constructions. They claim these are development projects, but if this is the case why is our heritage being destroyed in the darkness of night and in secret - and why don't they sit down with the cultural authorities to find a solution to carry out their so-called development projects, and at the same time safeguard our national heritage?"

*45,000 years old Paleolithic site of Kaftarkhun, located in Iran’s Isfahan province, has been completely annihilated to build a horse racing course while the eastern parts of this ancient site have seen irreversible damage due to quarry blasting.

*1000-hectare area of a historical site belonging to Parthian dynastic era (248 BCE-224CE) in Khuzestan province has also fallen victim to developmental constructions of the Islamic regime’s Hamidieh Azad University in Hamidieh city.

* Tomb of Firuzan (Abu-Lu'lu'ah) in Kashan destroyed, in part to placate the Sunni Arabs. This Persian hero killed the Islam’s third Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattāb, avenging the death on thousands of Iranian by Omar’s Islamic aggressors.

The inanimate historical sites of the world are indeed living schools where invaluable lessons are held in their repositories. Preserving, exploring and studying these sites tell a great deal about humanity’s past, its triumphs and defeat.

Destroying these sites, no matter where they are in the world is tantamount to the burning of libraries. Only truly barbarians such as the bigoted Islamists fail to appreciate these treasures that belong to the entire human family. It is the Islamists’ belief that any and all information, ideals and practices that fall outside of Islam are void and must be eliminated.

It is the imperative duty of all enlightened people to steadfastly counter the relentless monolithic Islamic culturcide taking place in Iran or wherever in the world the scourge of Islamism invades.

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=2

Posted by: InfidelK9 at July 1, 2008 12:06 PM

It is the imperative duty of all enlightened people to steadfastly counter the relentless monolithic Islamic culturcide taking place in Iran or wherever in the world the scourge of Islamism invades.

That is a job only the Iranians (in this case) can do. It's their culture. We might have remnants of it in museums or libraries but Iranians are the only ones who can preserve it for themselves. They're the ones who will have to choose between Islam or no Islam. For now, patriotism dictates (to them) that they choose Islam. They will also have to live with the consequences of that choice.

The "enlightened people", as Amil Imani puts it, will have a hard enough time preserving their own cultures from the ravages of Islam without worrying about Iranian culture or that of any other Muslim country. We risk losing everything we have to Islam. It is our imperative duty to save ourselves first. If we lose our own culture, what then? At the time of the Renaissance, Islam had already reigned in Iran for centuries. It's too late to worry about Iran, Egypt or anywhere else in the Muslim world. Maybe when they join us in the enlightenment, we can help them rebuild, but not before.

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 12:48 PM

Interesting as always, Hugh.

It is too bad indeed that Israel is left to do the civilized world's dirty work.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 1, 2008 12:55 PM

NPR-National Propaganda Radio. Light uninformative information for feeble minded Multiculturalism.

IMO Poor Terry is out shined by the CBC's "As it(couldn't possibly) Happen. A Land where everybody is right. Those in the wrong are not invited.

Iran will not hold back if Attacked.

Iran will cease to function as a Nation. There will be change alright.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at July 1, 2008 1:03 PM

a) Obama Presidency
b) military coup

Posted by: Whistling Dixie at July 1, 2008 1:26 PM

Somewhat OT but interesting.

The building of the Sivand Dam by the Islamist government was launched under the pretext that it would be a boon for the farmers. Impartial experts, including expert geologists from the University of Shiraz, have countered with evidence to the exact opposite outcome. Farmers in the area had worked diligently for centuries and habilitated the originally salty soil. Water from the new dam is bound to make it the farmers’ bane by returning the soil to salinity once again, experts warned.

This is reminiscent of Stalinist policies in the former Soviet Union. In the 1930s Stalin had the ambition of increasing cotton harvests in Central Asian regions by building dams to divert water, a project initiated by Lenin a decade earlier. The end result was increased soil saltification and depletion, and a dying Aral sea. The Mullahcracy of Iran is doing the same thing again with the Sivand Dam. This is a major Islamic socialist project doomed to the same failures Stalinist policies wreaked on the people of Central Asia decades ago. Amedhinejad is merely another Stalin, his Mullahs the latter day Communist Bolsheviks of their ‘religious’ Cult of Allah. History repeated again, massive ill advised social engineering with disastrous effects. More on this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416910.800-soviet-cotton-threatens-a-regions-sea--and-its-children.html
Iran is doomed to repeat the same socialist disasters of Stalinism under their Bolshevik-like Mullahcracy, and the people will suffer again. Except this time it isn’t Communism but Islamism, same difference. Not a religion.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 1, 2008 1:26 PM

If one can speculate Iraq's being a Tar Baby, can one speculate that anything done in any muslim country can be also labelled a "Tar Baby"? For as long our governing elites do not label "islam with terrorism" how can any fight be effective?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 1, 2008 1:29 PM

From above: Iran will not hold back if Attacked.

Once they decide to attack Iran, a half hearted effort is not the way. Iran must be left incapable and/or unwilling to launch much of a counter attack.

Posted by: duh_swami at July 1, 2008 1:29 PM

Golly, there sure are a lot of "secrets" flying about these days:

Israeli PM pays secret visit to Dimona nuclear center

July 1, 2008, 5:25 PM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile: The unusual publicity given to prime minister Ehud Olmert’s visit to Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona, in the southern Negev region, on July 1 - albeit after the fact - is a more than gentle hint to Iran of Israel’s determination to pre-empt a nuclear-armed Iran.

It further intensifies the ongoing war of words and signals flying between Tehran, Washington and Jerusalem in recent weeks over the nuclear issue. A rejoinder from the Islamic Republic may be expected

http://debka.com/index1.php

Do you suppose the iranian ape is making plans for just such an event?

Like Tucco said in the movie: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 1:29 PM

plumberger said

Would that be likely to work? Most of their nuclear facilities are said to be installed underground, so I find it doubtful whether they could be permanently destroyed without ground troops. I understand that Americans are unwilling to support a major operation against Iran because of the disaster in Iraq, but I'm afraid that airstrikes will at best delay the Iranian bomb.

If I may be so bold as to defend the view of Hugh, who is more than willing and able to defend his own views, the distinction is not the intra-Armed-Forces debate between whether airpower alone is sufficient to achieve military objectives without those "boots on the ground", but the intra-Bush-Administration debate of how much financial aid will be lavished on the country (as in Iraq and Afghanistan) after we do our surgical strike to remove the few extremists at the top who are enslaving the vast majority of moderates who are just like us.

Special Forces personnel will probably have to go in and verify that the targets were destroyed, or possibly to engage in demolition themselves. But that's not the point. They should not stay there to hand out candy to the Iranian children, and to build bridges and powerplants and schools and whatever else we think they should have, even as our own infrastructure is failing (see the I35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis), due to lack of maintenance.

If a hostile nation is threatening to attack us and destroy us (which Iran is doing), and is building the weapons that will allow them to carry out their threat (which Iran is doing), then for our own safety we should go in and destroy those weapons before they can be used against us, or against our only true friend and ally in the Middle East, Israel. They should not be committed to stay there until Iranians love their fellow Iranians and stop torturing and murdering each other (in other words, stay there forever). Destroy and leave, destroy and leave, destroy and leave. That must be our mantra. No winning-of-hearts-and-minds, no gimongous financial aid, no Wilsonian-nation-building, no regime change.

Destroy and leave. Remove their ability to attack us with WMD's. No more, no less.

The American people will always be willing to support an operation that will result in the temporary removal of an imminent threat. It is the godd*mmn*d stuff that happened after the military war was won that we are unwilling to support.

Posted by: special_guest at July 1, 2008 1:35 PM

Bingo: The Russians do want another Cold War while denying that they do. They don't understand freedom, want a strong man to rule them and would love to see America and Israel get what they consider their come-uppance. The Russians are impressive in the courage and arts departments but they are abysmal wherever true freedom is the issue. So, they won't stop making deals with the tyrants of the earth. Count on it.

Besides, they're still seething (Russians can seethe for a very long time, though not as long as do the Arabs) over our bombing of Serbia in 1999, never mind that it put an end to the acute slaughtering of Balkan folk from all stripes over the previous eight years and instituted a rough peace which, however imperfect, is still preferable to the massive instability in the Balkans from 1991-1999. And, oh yes, the Russians also hate the expansion of NATO, the greatest military alliance in history for the protection and promotion of freedom. Now, the Poles don't hate NATO. Neither do the Estonians or Czechs or Romanians or Bulgarians or Slovenians or Slovakians or....... In fact, these people want to be part of it. But not the Russians. And that goes back to the freedom matter I already mentioned above. That Russia would look upon NATO as a threat says far more about Russia than the Russians will probably ever realize. Meanwhile, Russia keeps making deals with Iran. I'm not one bit surprised.

Posted by: Wellington at July 1, 2008 1:45 PM

Denmark: Church Pays Protection Money To Muslims

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/07/01/denmark-church-pays-protection-money-to-muslims/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 1, 2008 1:59 PM

Suppose, for example, that the Islamic Republic of Iran is overthrown. Suppose, somehow, that there is a mood, among the most advanced of Iranians, those who have endured the Islamic Republic of Iran, and those who, in exile, have watched, and learned more about the West, and had occasion to think more deeply about the history of Iran, its pre-Islamic past, the non-Islamic elements in the present, and the possiblity of minimizing the role of Islam in Iranian life, and even helping to turn people away from Islam altogether. - Hugh

It's in the mail:

A Letter from Reza Pahlavi to Ali Khamenei via mypetjawa

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at July 1, 2008 2:15 PM

1. Israel hits Iran.
2. Iran Closes the straits of hormuze.
3. Hezbolia starts rocket campagin in Israel.
4. Oil hits $250.

5. Obama takes office.

Posted by: Ruebacca at July 1, 2008 2:22 PM

Predictions about the price of oil as a result of warfare usually ignore economic reality. No producer state can afford to sell less oil, least of all one that has just been attacked.

The Iran-Iraq War pitted the second and third largest Middle East producers against each other, in a gigantic conflict, that went on for eight years. What happened to the price of oil? It went down. What happened to the oilfields of both parties? Practically nothing, because each understood that if one side hit the other's oil installations, the same thing would happen to it.

An American or Israeli attack on Iran need not be on its oil installations, but only on everything to do with its nuclear project. The Iranian government will surely know that if it tries to attack other oil installations then its own oil will come under attack -- the very oil now sitting in tankers that the Iranians are cutting the prices on madly, hoping hoping hoping someone will buy it. As for this attack in the Straits of Hormuz that a poster warns of above, what is he talking about? Does he not know what American forces are right there, and what they are capable of, if they had a mind to do it? Does he think the Iranian government doesn't know what would happen to it if it tried to blockade the Straits of Hormuz?

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2008 2:48 PM

The president of OPEC, Chakib Khelil, said on Tuesday that the oil cartel had concerns that future demand for oil might not be strong enough to justify investment to boost oil production.

The concern we have is about the security of demand, Khelil, who is also Algeria's energy minister, told delegates at industry event the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid.

He said there were "big uncertainties" about making huge investments in infrastructure to increase output from OPEC member countries, which pump about 40 percent of world oil.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080701082809.h8x9bsrv&show_article=1

With the oil reserves we have in the US we don't need OPEC and it won't take 10 years or more to develop these reserves either.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 3:00 PM

Destroy and leave. Remove their ability to attack us with WMD's. No more, no less.

special_guest,

Yes, more. Cease issuing visas. It's not the function of the military but the two must happen in tandem or we will not be one bit safer.

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 3:19 PM

If I am wrong about GW being wussed out and I certainly hope that I am, the air strike against Iran had better be done right and it had better include our participation because we are going to be included in the blame for it anyway. The IAF is good but it has limitations and they need help.

Posted by: pismopal at July 1, 2008 3:55 PM

No'Bama, No Bomb.

Posted by: John C at July 1, 2008 3:56 PM

Our political "leaders" have yet to identify the enemy with whom we fight. "Terrorism" is not the enemy. So how could we expect these same political "leaders" to intelligently assist Israel (and the world) in attacking Iran's nuke plants.

Israel can accomplish this job very well on their own and must do so to survive. They deserve the support and great respect from everyone in this endeavor.

Posted by: Spot on at July 1, 2008 4:04 PM

Does he think the Iranian government doesn't know what would happen to it if it tried to blockade the Straits of Hormuz?...

But Hugh, I, nabi ZK, wise, munificent, but esp. clairvoyant, like proclaim that, you know, that like, they are Loony Toons. They could go for it. Not that they could really sustain that for too long, but they could, you know, like shoot the moon or something. Bound for glory and all.

nabi ZK

...believe it or else buddy...it's at least possible, right?...

Posted by: zonie kafir at July 1, 2008 4:22 PM

"Does he not know what American forces are right there, and what they are capable of, if they had a mind to do it?"

We have the people. We know they're capable. But who in the American hierarchy, with the possible exception of Dick Cheney, has a mind to do anything but pander and coddle? In these waning months of his administration, President Bush wants a deal - any deal - as a legacy.

"Does he think the Iranian government doesn't know what would happen to it if it tried to blockade the Straits of Hormuz?"

But does the Iranian government even care? If they are willing to block the waterway through which ninety percent of their exports flow what won't they do?

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 4:34 PM

witness...

infowars? infowars?

5 minutes in that cesspit of incoherent thought a long time ago told me that anyone who either called "Hitler" or quoted that idiot had already lost the argument.

C'mon, you have to do better then that at this forum. Best to lurk and learn than appear really, really foolish, I have learned.

Posted by: Robohobo at July 1, 2008 4:36 PM

I don't believe Bush/Cheney will leave this loose cannon on deck. Either alone or with Israel, W is going to drop the hammer on Iran before the election. And, McCain will ride into office on coat-tails he doesn't deserve.

Posted by: undaunted at July 1, 2008 4:44 PM

witness...

infowars? infowars?

5 minutes in that cesspit of incoherent thought a long time ago told me that anyone who either called "Hitler" or quoted that idiot had already lost the argument.

C'mon, you have to do better then that at this forum. Best to lurk and learn than appear really, really foolish, I have learned.

Posted by: Robohobo at July 1, 2008 4:36 PM

Where did I quote Hitler??

Anyway, you never heard of "disinformation?"

Happens all the time in every war; get used to it.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 4:59 PM

witness - can't read either? what about "...or quoted that idiot..." meaning Alex Jones did you not understand?

i spent near 2 years in Austin and got to watch that loon occasionally. he is unhinged.

like i said it is best you lurk and learn at jihad watch rather than appear foolish.

just some friendly advice is all. these folks are a smart bunch.

Posted by: Robohobo at July 1, 2008 5:06 PM

Yeah, where did witness quote Hitler? And anyway, what's wrong with that? We quote Mohammed all the time, and he's the same as Hitler. ANYONE can be quoted, whether ally or enemy. Hello.

Who the heck is "Robohobo?" Really, really foolish.

Let me quote Salman Rushdie: "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend it doesn't exist."

Posted by: darcy at July 1, 2008 5:11 PM

Hell if I was a Israeli I'd be terrified of a Obama presidency.

Posted by: waltc at July 1, 2008 11:33 AM

I'm NOT Israeli and I'm terrified. I'm Christian.

I'm very terrified of a Mohammedan presidency, which is Obama. It's shocking that's he's a candidate at all after 9/11. Utterly shocking.

I would bet $ that a month after Hussein is sworn in, we have a major 9/11-style Islamic Terrorist attack.

Posted by: darcy at July 1, 2008 5:17 PM

From above: i spent near 2 years in Austin and got to watch that loon occasionally. he is unhinged.

I think Alex Jones is unhinged as well, but that does not mean he is wrong about everything.

Posted by: duh_swami at July 1, 2008 5:23 PM

witness - can't read either? what about "...or quoted that idiot..." meaning Alex Jones did you not understand?

i spent near 2 years in Austin and got to watch that loon occasionally. he is unhinged.

I have no idea what you are talking about ....

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 5:25 PM

All this drivel about the price of oil if America attacks. What do you think the price will be if they get the Atomic Bomb and start to Blackmail the world and threaten to close the straits of Homus. America would be forced to go eyeball to eyeball with Iran and these religious Psychopaths are not going to blink. Israel will be forced to attack Iran at sometime in the future because the threat is Existential and this time the pesky Yids are not going to roll over, they learned that lesson 60 odd years ago and who can blame them. America doesn't want to have a confrontation when they have the bomb because oil would shoot through the roof and the American and world economy would sink like a stone. Not that America couldn't produce the goods only 2% of America's electricity comes from oil but you just wouldn't be able to transport them if the oil from the Gulf stopped flowing. An attack is as far as I am concerned inevitable. America could stop an attack on Iran if they wanted too the Israelis will have to fly through American Air Space to attack and the Israelis will need the codes for the friend foe identification, transmitters on there airplanes and they will not risk it without them. The article reads as if the American could not do anything to stop the Israelis, when in fact they could. The American Admiral's visit to Israel sounds more like he has gone there to cross the Ts and dot the is on a cooperation agreement that has already been agreed upon. I suspect that the Israelis will start the ball rolling with an attack, they are going to get blamed anyway and the Americans will act as fireman damping down any Iranian reaction and surreptitiously finishing off what the Israelis have missed. The Americans wont come out of it smelling like roses but I doubt if there will any real protestations. The world will be only too pleased to have got rid of the threat of a Nuclear Iran. The Israelis will want to get back anyway. I am certain they will be wanting to use more of those bunker busters they bought for $300,000,000 from the Americans a few months ago. Hezbullah and Hamas I am certain will not disappoint them, and throw a tantrum to help out there Iranian paymasters. You can bet your life that Israelis will have learned their lesson from 2006 and wont be sending in any tanks and troops. With the Americans busy in the Gulf they will be more off the worlds radar. This will really give them a chance to get rid of the threat of Hezbullah long range rockets, and with a bit of luck Syria might get its bottom smacked as well, one can only live in hope.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at July 1, 2008 5:26 PM

The world will be only too pleased to have got rid of the threat of a Nuclear Iran.

Holger Dansker,

So let them come out and say so. BEFORE action is taken. ARABS? How about offering to help? No more of this yelling at America onstage and shaking our hand offstage.

Now American soldiers have to worry about the ICC and the World Court and whatever else the UN can come up with. If they hit the wrong target they become international criminals. You can laugh at it but who would have thought Mark Steyn would be on trial in a WESTERN court for his writing?

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 5:57 PM

I would bet $ that a month after Hussein is sworn in, we have a major 9/11-style Islamic Terrorist attack.

darcy,

And five will get you ten that George W. Bush will be blamed because the action was "planned on his watch". BO will not have had sufficient time to show the Muslim world we want to be their friends. He will escape any and all blame.
It will be Bush's fault anyway because "he made them do it". Count on MSM to frame it that way.

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 6:01 PM

And this is being announced to the world because...?

Posted by: Mo at July 1, 2008 6:01 PM

The Strait (no 's') of Hormoz will not be closed, other than temporarily while any and all threat potentials are neutralized. It is not even close to a "Suez Canal" operation. Not even a moon-god could close it off or control it (other than for a very short time - say a day or two)... Any contrary claim is nothing but propaganda aimed at the gullible and uninformed (who must begin thinking in terms -other than the dollar amount of a tank of gas...) as those making it know that hell-on-earth-response awaits any attempt.
The Russian nuveau-riche-captialist-arms-dealers (who don't give a damn about "cold-wars" old or new or "imperial hegemony" by any nation) better sell the islamic republic every "sa-20" they can - as these won't help either - other than to slow the inevitable and complete destruction of the nuclear weapon production capabilities of the islammaniacs.
Try a new approach: bring the "islamic" repbulic time of iran to an end. Free the slaves in Iran and initiate the ultimate goal -the end of islam.

Posted by: TINBH at July 1, 2008 6:04 PM

It's shocking that's he's a candidate at all after 9/11. Utterly shocking.

Posted by: darcy

I agree! And I'm also shocked over anyone who would actually vote for him.

Posted by: champ at July 1, 2008 6:08 PM

I would bet $ that a month after Hussein is sworn in, we have a major 9/11-style Islamic Terrorist attack.

darcy,

And five will get you ten that George W. Bush will be blamed because the action was "planned on his watch". BO will not have had sufficient time to show the Muslim world we want to be their friends. He will escape any and all blame.
It will be Bush's fault anyway because "he made them do it". Count on MSM to frame it that way.

Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 6:01 PM

I wonder if BO gets in why there would be a need for a terrorist action?

"They" will pretty much have the country where they want us -- on our knees and acting like the Brits.

As much as I dislike bush, I have to agree that he will be given more credit than he deserves no matter what happens; guess that's politics.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 6:29 PM

Well personally I don't care who attacks Iran. I just want to wake up one morning and find out somebody has. I feel like doing it myself, but alas I have no army/airforce/navy in my own little world ;o)

I've had enough of their crap and I'm not an Israeli.

What gets me is the fact that the US was willing to go into Iraq because they "had intelligence" that Iraq was making WMD's. Now, the whole world knows that Iran is going to have the ability to make nuclear weapons with 1 - 2 yrs and everyone sits around wringing their hands.

This is one time I want Cheney to make the decision.

Posted by: gymgal at July 1, 2008 6:29 PM

We are all Israelis.

Posted by: fluffy at July 1, 2008 6:30 PM

When the proverbial hits the fan over 'there', the ticking time bombs 'here' will be going off on their usual tangents, along with the organized militia who have no doubt 'infiltrated' our borders preparing themselves for this moment in time which will make all this talk about the price of oil a mere side issue. Anarchy and chaos will prevail and it will be everyone for themselves, just the way they want it...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at July 1, 2008 6:37 PM

There will be a major terrorist attack on American soil within a year of Inauguration Day, no matter who is elected. They did it to Clinton. They did it to Bush 43. They will do it to the next guy.

Posted by: skevin at July 1, 2008 6:54 PM

I wonder if BO gets in why there would be a need for a terrorist action? --witness

To show us who's boss.

Posted by: darcy at July 1, 2008 7:01 PM

We are all Israelis.

Posted by: fluffy at July 1, 2008 6:30 PM

You're right. I'm an Israeli, too.

Posted by: darcy at July 1, 2008 7:03 PM

skevin: Interesting prognostication. Of course, if you are correct, the response by a President McCain would be far different from that of a President Obama.

Posted by: Wellington at July 1, 2008 7:04 PM

Maybe the real target is the mad mullahs and ape-boy...when they are all gathered in assembly blowing smoke up each others rear-ends?

Posted by: solomonpal at July 1, 2008 7:08 PM

Witness~ I’ve walked through Lower Manhattan in the wee hours for the past ten years because I take the Staten Island Ferry to get home. Laying cables and optical fibers is a never-ending project in the Financial District. They rip up the streets and power down buildings every night. In the morning, it’s all paved over. This went on before 9/11, and it will keep going on.

Baseless conspiracy theories are one of the many reasons Ground Zero is still a hole in the ground.

Posted by: skevin at July 1, 2008 7:13 PM

PMK said

Yes, more. Cease issuing visas.

Of course I meant "no more" (other than destroying WMD's and the capability to make them) inside Iran. Yes, I agree, there are so many more things to do inside our own countries to protect ourselves from jihad, as Robert and Hugh have pointed out many, many times.

Think where we'd be if, instead of spending those trillions in Iraq, we had spent them here, at home, improving our energy policy, securing our borders, educating the infidels.

The point is so important, and apparently misunderstood, it's worth repeating again:

Our goal should be to protect the infidels from Islamic attack. We should remove the jihadis' ability to attack us, whether by violent means or non-violent means. We should not allow them to come here, where they will only suffer by living among the corrupt kufirs. We should not spend our time and effort and money to improve their lives, against their will, in their own countries. We should not try to govern them, or take on responsibility for their security, in their own countries. We should not call them our "good friends" and our "strong allies in the war on terror".

What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan in July 2008 has nothing to do with making the infidels safer from Islamic attack. We should not compound that mistake by adding Iran to the list of Middle Eastern leaches that we are generously sticking on our own skin to help fatten them up and to win their "hearts and minds", at the cost of our own blood and health.

Posted by: special_guest at July 1, 2008 7:29 PM

"Our goal SHALL be to protect the infidels from islamic attack. We SHALL remove the jihadis' ability to attack us, whether by violent means or non-violent means. We SHALL not allow them to come here, where they will only suffer by living among the corrupt kufirs. We SHALL not spend our time and effort and money to improve their lives, against their will, in their own countries. We SHALL not try to govern them, or take on responsibility for their security, in their own countries. We SHALL not call them our "good friends" and our "strong allies in the war on terror"."

Arrh, that's better.

The function of 'should' in speech is to express duty, necessity, etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use after all this time has produced ambiguity and indecision, it's time to take the gloves off...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at July 1, 2008 8:00 PM

Witness~ I’ve walked through Lower Manhattan in the wee hours for the past ten years because I take the Staten Island Ferry to get home. Laying cables and optical fibers is a never-ending project in the Financial District. They rip up the streets and power down buildings every night. In the morning, it’s all paved over. This went on before 9/11, and it will keep going on.

Baseless conspiracy theories are one of the many reasons Ground Zero is still a hole in the ground.

Posted by: skevin at July 1, 2008 7:13 PM

My point exactly.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2008 9:12 PM

No'Bama, no quarter to Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: John C at July 1, 2008 9:57 PM

OT

I was talking with a relative today and was told that a story (not sure if it is true or not) said the when Ahmadinejad, Pres. of Iran, was going through customs in Roman recently the authorities cranked up the Xray machine on him and his staff LOL. It said it was so high the room was very warm.

We can look at this a number of ways. Because of the extra millrems he could be used for ore enrichment. Or the IDF could easily find him in a crowd (glow in the dark). Those jooos are so clever. Or cancer could be incubating. One, wonders.

PS Maybe this was not OT?

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at July 1, 2008 10:13 PM

Please, Uncle Sam.

Just give the IAF a bunch of those nice F22s already but don't tell anybody, OK? Instructions to go with them - just three words - "Use Your Initiative".

And, O House of Israel - please, I know it is very difficult (Yaakov at 'Dry Bones blogspot' once unforgettably described Judaism as 'an ongoing debating society'), but you must say NOTHING, either before, during, or after whatever it is you decide to do about the Assassins. Say nothing. Ever. Neither explanations nor apologies.

Let the conspiracy-theorists of the Ummah stew and rot in their own soup of nonsense and lies.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 2, 2008 12:19 AM

Ich bin ein Israeli!

Figuratively, you know. Kind of like JFK. Not that I would compare myself to JFK. Although someone did compare me to Lenny Bruce today...

Posted by: Richard at July 2, 2008 12:37 AM