It's that time again. Spring rains are falling, birds are singing, flowers are blossoming, and GWB wants to blow something up.

Since we can look back at how the run up to the Iraq war went, it'll be easier to track how far along we are this time. I'll go ahead and throw out a couple of the precursors we probably want to look for:

1. Made-up propaganda
2. Exaggerated , out-of-context and unqualified evidence
3. Creating a false sense of urgency
4. Inappropriately conflating Iran with things that actually threaten the US
5. Acting like the American people give a fuck about Israel
6. Token attempts to gain international consensus
7. Absurd, made-up, erroneous interpretations of international law, tradition, agreements
8. Pretense of having an occupation plan and exit strategy
9. Severely and unethically underquoting the human and financial costs of war+occupation
10. "Trust me -- I'm George W. Bush!"

If you find any article that exemplifies these points or the ones that get added, by all means post them. We might be able to predict the week the invasion starts.

4/10/2006 10:30:57 PM

Quote :

"1. Made-up propaganda"

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=400004

4/10/2006 10:49:27 PM

6. Token attempts to gain international consensus

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/world/middleeast/11iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

4/10/2006 11:18:38 PM

10. "Trust me -- I'm George W. Bush!"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/whitehouse.leak/index.html
"So I wanted people to see the truth," he said. "And I thought it made sense for people to see the truth."-Bush

Quote :

"Wilson told ABC, "When you selectively leak pieces of the National Intelligence Estimate, and when you attribute pieces in the body to key judgments, you are furthering that disinformation campaign.""

4/10/2006 11:47:46 PM

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30931

1. Made-up propaganda
8. Pretense of having an occupation plan and exit strategy

4/10/2006 11:59:17 PM

do you guys really think he wants to hand it to hillary that badly?

of course, she's a good target to be the "whore of babylon"

STAY ON TARGET

4/11/2006 12:10:22 AM

You invade one country and suddenly people think it's all you do all day.

That said, I hate Bush.

4/11/2006 12:25:19 AM

The only thing Hillary's going to win is a dyke haircut contest.

4/11/2006 12:58:32 AM

numbers 1-4 are happening as we speak

4/11/2006 1:02:37 AM

Quote :

"You invade one country and suddenly people think it's all you do all day. That said, I hate Bush."

technically iraq was our second war. its just that bush had huge approval ratings for afghanistan, and that war was actually justified.

4/11/2006 8:47:58 AM

Just shows how effectively an invasion erases the memory of any previous invasion.

4/11/2006 11:21:42 AM

Just shows how effectively an invasion erases the memory of any previous successful invasion.

I think it took three invasions and two decades to wipe away Vietnam, and even then, that war's spector is still invoked regularly. Even if Bush could magically requisition the troops, materiel, funding, and political capital for an invasion of Iran, it's not going to remove Iraq off of the national consciousness.

4/11/2006 1:51:58 PM

When's the last time you heard about Afghanistan?

4/11/2006 1:53:49 PM

was afghanistan really a success?
we havent found the guy who was ultimately responsible for 9/11

4/11/2006 2:55:52 PM

Quote :

"When's the last time you heard about Afghanistan?"

My point was that while Iraq may have easily erased Afghanistan (because of scale, casualties, support, etc.), I doubt an Iran invasion, if possible, would cover up the current Iraqi debacle. My thoughts were how from Grenada to Panama to Iraq round 1, Vietnam was continuously on everyone's minds. It was only after an unparallel success in the liberation of Kuwait that the demons of Vietnam were masked... only to return with Iraq round 2.

4/11/2006 3:04:54 PM

Quote :

""Once again they have chosen the pathway of defiance as opposed to the pathway of cooperation. And we would call upon the Iranian regime to reconsider the steps that it has taken," McCormack said."

Quote :

" The enrichment took place Sunday, the president said, adding that "our nuclear activities have been under complete supervision, unprecedented supervisions" by the International Atomic Energy Agency. "And today we are interested in operating under IAEA supervision," he said. IAEA inspectors are at a facility in Natanz, but it is unclear whether they witnessed the enrichment process. (Uranium enrichment explainer) "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear/index.html

4/12/2006 1:34:29 AM

^I suppose that could be 1-3 with a little bit of 7 thrown in.

4/12/2006 2:14:20 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041200966.html

4/12/2006 3:05:39 PM

Quote :

"My point was that while Iraq may have easily erased Afghanistan (because of scale, casualties, support, etc.),*snip*"

???

Afghanistan had practically everyone behind it.

Quote :

"I doubt an Iran invasion, if possible, would cover up the current Iraqi debacle. My thoughts were how from Grenada to Panama to Iraq round 1, Vietnam was continuously on everyone's minds. It was only after an unparallel success in the liberation of Kuwait that the demons of Vietnam were masked... only to return with Iraq round 2."

I'm confused here. Are you saying the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent liberation of Kabul wasn't a success?

4/12/2006 3:28:12 PM

well they dont really have a government and we havent found bin laden.
their economy is still mostly heroin.

we did better there than we did in iraq, but we definetly did not finish the job.

4/12/2006 3:30:34 PM

Quote :

"well they dont really have a government "

they have a democratic government that is functioning quite well.

Quote :

"we havent found bin laden"

it would be nice to get him, and i'd like to pump a few rounds into him myself, but he's fairly irrelevant at this point.

Quote :

"their economy is still mostly heroin"

and mexico's is mostly shit marijuana, and columbia's is mostly cocaine. it's a function of any country without infrastructure.

4/12/2006 7:00:55 PM

Quote :

"a democratic government "

TRY AGAIN. troll.

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 7:04 PM. Reason : or maybe you are just igrnorant. they do NOT have a democracy.]

4/12/2006 7:03:34 PM

honestly i'm tired of worrying about gas all the time

seriously whatever the fuck it takes to get cheap gas, i'm all for it

usa #1

4/12/2006 7:46:06 PM

I"m affraid Josh is right. To run for office you must be approved by the religious council. To pass a law it must be approved by the religious council. The religious council can have anyone removed from any office for any reason.

^ then just stop worrying. Problem solved.

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 7:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/12/2006 7:47:40 PM

karzai = "mayor of kabul"
is he still being guarded by us troops instead of afghans?

4/12/2006 9:55:58 PM

almost every modern system has a bureaucracy that has a democratic like element to it

the pose as democracies, but really aren't

kind of like the USA

4/12/2006 10:23:30 PM

Yeah, but dig this.

In the U.S., the President has real, executive authority over all of the following states (and all cities contained therein): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

In Afghanistan, their head of state has real, executive authority over: Kabul.

There's quite a distinction.

Imagine calling Bush the President of the United States if he could only effect policy in Washington D.C.

---

Anyway, HERE COMES THE HEADLINES...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany

Quote :

"Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2) April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today. ``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month. The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported. ``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement. Weapons-Grade Uranium Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium. Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said. ``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said. While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program. Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year. China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said."

16 days, huh.

This shit sound familiar to anyone?

I mean, the polls are in the shitter and no amount of town halls seem to be fixing it. Timing's right. Iran's as good as bombed.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:00 AM. Reason : ...]

4/13/2006 2:47:46 AM

^ooo, that looks like the all important

Quote :

"3. Creating a false sense of urgency"

4/13/2006 9:08:11 AM

4/13/2006 9:14:08 AM

how the fuck do you go from 160 centrifuges to 50,000 in 2 weeks??????

4/13/2006 10:52:28 AM

It's the power of the spin machine, friend.

This is a news article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

Quote :

"Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01 A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis. The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table." The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking. The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons." At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program. The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative views supporting and challenging the assumptions they are based on. Those familiar with the new judgments, which have not been previously detailed, would discuss only limited elements of the estimate and only on the condition of anonymity, because the report is classified, as is some of the evidence on which it is based. Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several administration officials said, as the White House formulates the next steps of an Iran policy long riven by infighting and competing strategies. For three years, the administration has tried, with limited success, to increase pressure on Iran by focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those efforts have been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the intelligence. The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, is the first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first term were narrow in scope, and some were rejected by advocates of policies that were inconsistent with the intelligence judgments. One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current officials said was commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's classified findings only on the condition of anonymity. The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material. The administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said an official familiar with policy discussions. Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president of national security developments and help guide policy. The new Iran findings were described as well documented and well written, covering such topics as military capabilities, expected population growth and the oil industry. The assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate annex to the NIE known as a memorandum to holders. "It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and what assumptions we have," a U.S. source said. Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not. The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures. The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said. The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles. It does not take into account that Iran has suspended much of its uranium-enrichment work as part of a tenuous deal with Britain, France and Germany. Iran announced yesterday that it intends to resume some of that work if the European talks fall short of expectations. Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge research and development that could be linked to a nuclear program, four sources said. Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile program with U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings obtained last November. The documents include design modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to make the room required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials said."

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 2:55 PM. Reason : wait for the contrast...]

4/13/2006 2:41:45 PM

Quote :

""If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he has really good connections, he'll get that program through," said Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA's nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. "But that doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear weapon." The commission found earlier this year that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran, and about North Korea. Much of what is known about Tehran has been learned through analyzing communication intercepts, satellite imagery and the work of U.N. inspectors who have been investigating Iran for more than two years. Inspectors uncovered facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment, results of plutonium tests, and equipment bought illicitly from Pakistan -- all of which raised serious concerns but could be explained by an energy program. Inspectors have found no proof that Iran possesses a nuclear warhead design or is conducting a nuclear weapons program. The NIE comes more than two years after the intelligence community assessed, wrongly, in an October 2002 estimate that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was reconstituting his nuclear program. The judgments were declassified and made public by the Bush administration as it sought to build support for invading Iraq five months later. At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said that new rules recently were imposed for crafting NIEs and that there would be "a higher tolerance for ambiguity," even if it meant producing estimates with less definitive conclusions. The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and alternative theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three years. Iran has said its nuclear infrastructure was built for energy production, not weapons. Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public explanation that it built the program in secret, over 18 years, because it feared attack by the United States or Israel if the work was exposed. In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney suggested Iranian nuclear advances were so pressing that Israel may be forced to attack facilities, as it had done 23 years earlier in Iraq. In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton -- then the administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction and now Bush's temporarily appointed U.N. ambassador -- said: "If we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer, it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons." But the level of certainty, influenced by diplomacy and intelligence, appears to have shifted. Asked in June, after the NIE was done, whether Iran had a nuclear effort underway, Bolton's successor, Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said: "I don't know quite how to answer that because we don't have perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian record, plus what the Iranian leaders have said . . . lead us to conclude that we have to be highly skeptical.""

This is Fred Hiatt's editorial from the same day's Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041202384.html

Quote :

"Iran's Nuclear Progress The regime answers Western diplomacy by firing up the atomic factory. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD continues to help the Bush administration's effort to convince the U.N. Security Council that more concerted action is needed to stop Iran's nuclear program. His loud announcement yesterday that Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium confirmed recent warnings by U.S. officials -- dismissed by some as exaggerated -- that Tehran's nuclear program was fast advancing. His defiant and exaggerated claim that "Iran has joined the club of nuclear nations" ought to make clear to Russia, China and other Security Council members how seriously the Iranian regime is taking their demand that it freeze its enrichment work. That is: not seriously at all. Though the technological breakthrough Mr. Ahmadinejad touted -- the successful operation of a cascade of centrifuges to enrich uranium to the degree needed for nuclear fuel -- leaves Iran well short of the means to build a nuclear bomb, it is significant. It ought to prompt some rethinking about how long it might be before the Iranian regime can back up, with a nuclear weapon, its president's threat to wipe Israel from the map. Some in Washington cite a U.S. intelligence estimate that an Iranian bomb is 10 years away. In fact the low end of that same estimate is five years, and some independent experts say three. Iran has announced plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its plant in Natanz by the end of 2006; according to former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright, that many working centrifuges could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Mr. Ahmadinejad's provocative grandstanding also offers an answer to those who argue that his government would abandon its breakneck dash for an enrichment capability if only it were offered the right incentives -- such as security guarantees and "a political dialogue" with the United States. Not only has Tehran shown no interest in previous carrots dangled by Europe and Russia, but its president clearly relishes a confrontation with the West. His answer to those Iranian moderates who worry that the country might be isolated, or economically harmed, is to point to the Security Council's record thus far, which suggests there is no danger of such action. Last weekend brought several news reports about the Pentagon's contingency planning for military action against Iran. As The Post reported, no attack is likely in the short term, and many specialists in and outside the government doubt such action would be effective. But unless the diplomacy on Iran can be made to work, this administration or its successor may have to choose between war and accepting Iran as a nuclear power. A workable diplomacy will have to include sticks as well as carrots: It will have to show Iranians that defiance of the Security Council, and provocations such as those of Mr. Ahmadinejad, will have tangible consequences."

Apparently everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and their own facts.

4/13/2006 2:56:57 PM

If Iran really does have 54,000 centrifuges prepared to process UF6, then I would't doubt that they could prodce enough enriched uranium for a bomb in 16 days. It only takes a few kg of enriched uranium to build a bomb. Once you have the tools in place to enrich uranium, the process is relatively fast. All you really need is a few hundred pounds of natural uranium and centrifuges. Even if they could only enrich 10 grams per day, it would only be around 5 years before they had enough to manufacture a bomb. The equiptment mentioned in the bloomberg article could conceivably enrich as much as a kg per day.

The real question is whether or not they have a uranium mine or a source for uranium and the chemical processing ability to produce a thousand pounds of UF6.

I seriously doubt Iran will have built a nuclear bomb by the end of the month, but if they really do know what they're doing I don't see what would be preventing them from having one built by the end of the year.

4/13/2006 3:17:27 PM

Quote :

"If Iran really does have 54,000 centrifuges prepared to process UF6"

they dont.

Quote :

"but if they really do know what they're doing I don't see what would be preventing them from having one built by the end of the year."

they dont know what they are doing.
even if they get the 3000 centrifuges that hiatt says they will have by the end of 2006 that means they will not have enough material until late summer of 2007, at which point they would have to make that material into a bomb.

THEN, what would they do with the bomb? smuggle it into the us and have their entire country flattened a day later? they may be crazy but i assume they are not suiciadal. (i could be wrong about that)

4/13/2006 3:27:33 PM

yeah, you want a Greater United States of Earth?

set off a nuke in a US city

4/13/2006 3:29:24 PM

^^they're not crazy, either

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 7:13 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

4/13/2006 7:12:33 PM

but bush is.

4/13/2006 7:19:04 PM

God told bush to leak secret infromation

4/13/2006 7:20:57 PM

OMG ME TOO
i just didnt have any to leak.

4/13/2006 7:27:12 PM

there is no drumbeat.

pre-iraq war was a drumbeat.

this is nothing.

4/13/2006 8:05:38 PM

more like someone playing a kazoo

4/13/2006 8:08:35 PM

did you read any of this thread?

there is some scary shit going on.

4/13/2006 8:08:51 PM

no, there isnt

there will be no war till the next president.

4/13/2006 8:12:22 PM

would you care to elaborate?

4/13/2006 8:33:49 PM

4/14/2006 12:15:38 AM

^
All we are saying, is give sheep a chance"

4/14/2006 12:37:36 AM

That drawing needs a lot of dead dogs with turbans on to really be accurate.

4/14/2006 12:39:02 AM

also would require uncle sam to be eating lamb chops with a wolf with no teeth that has been shot but still alive in his gun sights with "iraq" in big letters on its side.

[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 12:44 AM. Reason : grammar]

4/14/2006 12:44:08 AM

there will be no war till the next president.

4/14/2006 12:56:58 AM

what are you salisburyboy?

why not?

4/14/2006 12:57:42 AM