Custom Search

Sunday, November 04, 2007


How many times over the last two years have you seen this headline from the left side of the blogosphere and in the mainstream media?

Have you lost count? I have.

January 2006 from

LONDON - Western powers are already planning use of the military option in the face of Iran's insistence that it will go ahead with what it calls its nuclear research program, a leading expert says.

''The military option is being considered already, they are just not talking about it because it would be deeply unpopular,'' Dr. Ali Ansari a leading Iran expert at The Royal Institute for International Affairs in London told IPS.


The military option is believed to have strong backing against Israel, which carried out an air strike on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq in 1981. Some reports suggest that Israel on its own may carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, with tacit backing from the United States and Britain.

But an air assault is not likely to be a simple repeat of the Osiraq attack. Iran has at least 25 or so nuclear facilities that all would be potential targets. And in anticipation of an attack, Iran would be expected to have taken due precautions.


There is a real danger that such an attack will be carried out, he said. ''There are people in U.S. circles that will want to attack,'' he said. Sanctions may not be considered as an option because ''sanctions are not effective,'' he said.


But with some fears that Iran could develop nuclear weapons within as little as six months, the sanctions route may not be an available option.

March 2006 from Times Online:

Nato may help US airstrikes on Iran

America and Israel have warned that they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. If negotiations fail, both countries have plans of last resort for airstrikes against Iran’s widely dispersed nuclear facilities.

Porter Goss, the head of the CIA, visited Recep Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, a Nato country, late last year and asked for political, logistical and intelligence support in the event of airstrikes, according to western intelligence sources quoted in the German media.

The news magazine Der Spiegel noted: “Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack.”

February 2007 from BBC:

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
February 2007, The Guardian:

Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring

The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

Then the biggie came along and Times Online told us news that anybody with any common sense already knew... contingency plans were already drawn up.

Look at a couple of these blog headlines.

Think Progress, February 7, 2007, with "Norquist: Bush’s Advisers Telling Him ‘Invade Iran. Then Everyone Will See How Smart We Are

Daily Kos, August 30, 2007, with "We Have Four Days"

Informed Comment, August 29, 2007, with "Post Labor Day Product Rollout: War with Iran (Cross-posted at DailyKos)!"

Huffington Post, on September 3, 2007, with "Bush Plans War on Iran"

This is just a small, very small sample of the complete freakfest that has been going on for almost 2 years now over on the left.

One small problem here, we haven't attacked Iran despite their cries of imminent attack.

Today we see a first paragraphs of an op-ed over at NYT that says quite a bit about the Democratic politicians and their supporters.

WHEN President Bush started making noises about World War III, he only confirmed what has been a Democratic article of faith all year: Between now and Election Day he and Dick Cheney, cheered on by the mob of neocon dead-enders, are going to bomb Iran.

But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

(Emphasis mine)

Once again, good news for the world and America is bad news for the Democrats.

Haven't we been here before?

Oh yeah!!! The "surge".


The Democrats went on their August recess, their vacation betting most of their political capital and their credibility on the surge failing (bad news for America) and it what had to be the worse vacation ever, they saw reports of scholars from the Brookings Institute come back saying "we might just win", die hard war opponents such as Brian Baird come back from Iraq saying the surge is working and the media starting to report good news from Iraq.

So, they decide to double down and they start proclaiming that the report that General Petraeus gives them in September wouldn't be the truth. MoveOn takes out an ad in the NYT calling General Petraeus, "General Betray us" ( which backfired) and Hillary Clinton tells the good General that believing him calls for a "willing suspension of disbelief".

They lost their bet, yet again, when events on the ground proved everything General Petraeus said.

By the way, as we mentioned yesterday, to add to the good news from Iraq shown in the links above, thousands of Iraqi's are returning to Iraq and citing "safety" as their reason and out media is finally starting to report the news, via Jules Crittenden.

Back to Iran and today, the steady drumbeat from the left about the imminent attack on Iran has backfired and all they have managed to do is get 52% of the American public to start supporting an attack on Iran!!!

Way to go morons.

Once again though, President Bush screws them over and he doesn't attack Iran which as Frank Rich pointed out (shown above) is bad news for the Democrats.

What does he do?

OMG, how dare him... he uses more diplomacy and imposes more sanctions against Iran and in the best kick in the pants to the Democrats ever, he does this after the Senate votes on the Kyl-Lieberman bill (bill passed with a 76 to 22 vote) to........IMPOSE THOSE VERY SANCTIONS.

For the record, although I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, Frank Rich rips into Hillary for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution but Hillary was not the only Democrat to vote for it, as I mentioned above, the vote was 76-22, so his memory is selective as he attacks Hillary for voting for that. (Roll call on that vote)

Don Surber finds this whole thing "monstrously hilarious":

Got that? No war in Iran “is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats.”

But if there is a war in Iran “the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president.”

This is monstrously hilarious. If there is no war, Dems lose. If there is a war, Dems lose.

Logic would tell you that the war has nothing to do with Democrats losing.

Here is why the Frank Riches of the world always lose: They worry about what the other guy is doing more than they pay attention to what is going on.

And when they lose, they blame others. Republicans cheated. Voters are stupid. The votes weren’t counted quite right.

Gotta love Surber's sense of humor.

You would think the Democrats, and their far left supporters, would learn about betting everything they have on what is bad for America and yet, they continue to do so.