Right Wing Lunatic

Of course they're worried.  They are worried that their precious Iranian fuel won't be coming to them at a cheap price and that they'll be shown to be at least in cahoots with Iran.

Russia and China expressed alarm on Tuesday over comments by France's foreign minister that Paris should prepare for the prospect of war with Iran, which the West accuses of secretly developing nuclear weapons.

Want to avoid war?  Support sanctions like you said you would in previous UN actions.  Keep your word Russia and China, I know it's a departure from what you're used to, but at least give it a shot.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: China, iran, nuclear program, Nuclear Weapons, Russia

# posted by Travis @ 3:17 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Ok, so according to retired General John Abizaid, the United States can "live with" a nuclear Iran.  Ok General, let me ask you this:  What happens when the other Middle Eastern countries want nukes because Iran has them?  Sooner or later you're going to have to deal with a country that is unstable and is armed with the worlds most powerful weapon.

What then?  Do you want your fellow Americans and their children to live in fear that one day a whacked out cleric decides that the Washington DC must go and he has enough influence to actually make it happen?

Even General Abizaid thinks the same thing:

"Clearly the development of a bomb in Iranian hands will cause other nations in the region to move in a like direction, and in a very unstable region like that, that is not good news," Abizaid said.

So if you agree with me General, then why make such bold and reckless statement like that?

The difference between China, Russia and Iran is that the former two didn't have religious nutjobs who talked of Armageddon. 

And I don't know about you, but I don't want to wake up one morning seeing Washington DC decimated and Iran as a parking lot full of radioactive glass.  I'd prefer that we move through diplomatic channels first, but if Russia and China continue to think of their economic needs first instead of the growing nuclear threat, then we need to nip this in the butt before it becomes a much more significant problem.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: iran, nuclear program, Nuclear Weapons

# posted by Travis @ 12:31 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Oh this story is rich with irony. :)

Iran on Monday accused French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of stoking a crisis after he said France must prepare for the possibility of war over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.

The official IRNA news agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini as saying Kouchner's remarks were not in line with European Union policies.

What?  Do you mean that they are showing some backbone and won't put up with your line of bullshit because they are tired of appeasing threats against the safety and security of their citizens?  It's THAT the "policy" you're speaking of?

In a commentary on Monday, IRNA accused France of "extremism," an apparent reference to Kouchner's statement.

Pot, meet kettle.

But the best part was that the French Foreign Minister was backed up by the Prime Minister of France:

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said on Monday that everything must be done to avoid war with Iran, but added that Kouchner was right to say the situation was dangerous and must be taken seriously.

It looks like they're getting tired of being pushed around and threatened Iran.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: France, iran, nuclear program

# posted by Travis @ 3:15 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Of course the toothless UN organization IAEA has this to say:

The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said on Monday talk of last-ditch war on Iran to disable its nuclear program was premature "hype" and suggested moves to harden sanctions on Tehran may be counterproductive.

We're actually TRYING that route, but Russia and China are dragging their feet and are looking only at the economic interruption rather than the nuclear weapons threat.

Western powers led by the United States and France have been fuming over ElBaradei's new deal with Iran requiring it to answer questions about past secret nuclear research but without touching its accelerating campaign to enrich atomic fuel.

They fear Iran has tricked the IAEA, pretending to cooperate to avoid painful sanctions and buy time to master enrichment.

Yep, that's what we're thinking.

Speaking on the sidelines of the IAEA'S 149-nation annual assembly, he repeated that IAEA sleuths had found no evidence of "weaponization" from Iranian enrichment work, although Iran was still preventing wider inspections aimed at ruling this out.

It's really not that hard Iran.  Just open up the doors on your nuclear facilities...ALL of your facilities, and it'll make everyone feel better.

Tehran wants to come clean on its program and use nuclear energy under IAEA monitoring but hostility from Washington and a few allies make that difficult, its atomic energy chief said.

Bullshit.  They could easily come out to the IAEA and say, "look, here's everything" and completely ignore the US, but they don't do that.  They try the line of "it makes it difficult".  Maybe I'm an idiot, but explain to me HOW it makes it difficult for Iran to open up to the IAEA?

"The Iranian nation is determined to continue its (nuclear) path until the highest point of advancement," Reza Aghazadeh said. "(We) have no fear of the costs we may have to bear to achieve this."

And the "highest point of advancement" is?  Weapons?  I'm willing to bet that's what it is.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: iran, nuclear program, un

# posted by Travis @ 2:50 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Here's an article that details proposed plans of war with Iran.  Typical "what if" stuff.  However, one section caught my eye.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armor-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

That should be happening NOW and be a separate issue from the Iranian nuclear issue.  If Iranians are actively supporting the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians as well as US soldiers, they need a swift and severe punishment.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: iran, military, Murder

# posted by Travis @ 2:43 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Well we tried the diplomatic route. Unfortunately, the Germans, Russians, and the Chinese are all too concerned about their economy to worry about a known terrorist nation getting a hold of a nuclear weapon.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

I think the blockade idea might work very well. The Iranian government is very wobbly right now and if the populace gets uppity, they certainly will have a major problem on their hands. Added financial sanctions against Iran might work well in our favor as well.

That being said, the time for diplomacy is certainly running out fast. The Israeli's certainly aren't going to take this on the chin. They have rumored to have hit nuclear facilities in Syria, so what do you think they'll do about a nation that's directly threatening them?

Iran certainly has to know that the situation in Iraq isn't going to be the same as the Iranian one. I'm willing to bet that there are people inside of Iran who think that simply because we're "bogged down" in Iraq that they can get away with this kind of thing, but there's got to be at least one or two higher up guys who say "guys, they don't have to rebuild our nation. If Americans want our nuclear program dead, it's almost a done deal".

That's what people don't seem to realize. They think that if we attack Iran, that all of a sudden we have to invade with ground forces and such. That's not the case. We don't care about anything other than their nuclear programs.

If Germany, Russia and China aren't willing to stand up and be responsible world players in the UN, then what's the point of even HAVING the UN? They all voted for sanctions against Iran and gave them X amount of time to stop enriching Uranium. That time has passed because Iran knows that they only have to convince one country to back them. Well if the time has passed, then those three countries have an obligation to go through with further measures because the previous ones were ignored. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

And of course, they'll gladly welcome any military attack on Iran. They don't have to get their hands dirty. They don't have to take the Iranian backlash. They only have to have big, bad America spend more money and more lives on deal with the problem and they all benefit.

That's bullshit and they should be called to carpet on it.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: China, Germany, iran, nuclear program, Nuclear Weapons, Russia, un

# posted by Travis @ 2:53 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

If the Bush administration launches an attack on Iran, the reason won't be that
Iran was about to obtain a nuclear weapon. The real reason will be that United
States, as the world's only superpower, wants to establish clearly that it --
not Iran -- is the dominant power in the Middle East. That would make us all
less secure, but the insistence on asserting dominance in the Middle East is the
essence of the Bush administration's policy.

Really genius?  So you mean to tell me that other nations like Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia who are concerned with Iran's nuclear program only want the US to be the only global superpower?  Go on, I'm all ears.

In other words, Iran could not be allowed to have even the option of a nuclear weapon capability, because the United States had to be able to operate with a completely free hand militarily in the region.

Umm....have you even READ the non proliferation nuclear treaty that Iran SIGNED??

What Donnelly did not say, but which follows from that posture, is that even a non-nuclear Iran that has links to strong allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, could not be allowed to be a regional power.

So I guess you're ok with a nation with nuclear weapons intentions to have ties to known terrorist organizations?  Are you ok with Russia having ties to Al-Qaeda?  What about China and the IRA?  You still ok with that?

Finally, the Bush administration refused to tolerate any real negotiations by the Europeans with Iran over its uranium enrichment program in 2004-2005, even though those negotiations could have resulted in an agreement that would limited Iran to a level of uranium enrichment that would have only a small fraction of what is required for the production of a nuclear weapon. In March 2005, Iran proposed to its European negotiating partners to submit to a system of their devising to guarantee against enrichment that could support a nuclear weapons through an inspection system. But under U.S. pressure the Europeans refused even to discuss it.

So you're ok with them taking just a bit longer to make a nuclear weapon??  Is that like Timothy McVeigh gathering up bomb components over the course of 20 years instead of 3?  That sounds like what you're saying to me.

We pressured the Europeans because they have a vast history of appeasement against threats and they needed to be reminded of the threat that we all face.

The administration's argument against such an agreement was that there was a secret enrichment program paralleling the acknowledge program that would fall under international inspection. But as Sy Hersh reported last November , after years of trying, the CIA still had found "no conclusive evidence" a such a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the one being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact the still classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program in mid-2005 concluded that no final Iranian decision had been made to pursue the manufacture of a nuclear weapon.

Well according to the IAEA, Iran got themselves a hold of nuclear weapons documents. 

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said in a report Tuesday that Iran obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. Iran would deliver a "crushing response" to any nation that attacked its nuclear facilities, its defense minister warned Wednesday.

Still ok with them getting a hold of a nuclear weapon?

The implication of the general acceptance of the threat of war against Iran as instrument of policy is that neither the "moderates" inside the administration nor the Democrats will be in a position to offer effective resistance to actual war against Iran before it is too late. Unless someone begins to push back soon, the distorted logic of dominance may carry this nation into an irrational and criminal war whose consequences for us and for the world would be the gravest imaginable.

So you're ok with a nation with nuclear weapons intentions, with known terrorist group ties, with knowingly fighting a proxy war against the US in Iraq?  You're ok about doing NOTHING about it?  You're ok that their President has made numerous threats about genocide against Israel?

Well, going by your logic, you wouldn't mind if your neighbor just started shooting at you.  You wouldn't mind if he invited over a few skinheads to have a "peaceful" rally in his front yard.  Hell, you wouldn't even mind if he out and out said he'd want to flatten your home, with you inside it.   Now of course, no one is actually calling for Gareth's neighbor to engage in violence against him, but once it effects you personally, views change.

Now that I've made the virtual situation more personal, Gareth, are you still ok with it?

I feel that way about ALL American lives, not just my own.  When I see a threat, I want that threat eliminated.  When I see people who are dismissive about it and call names, I need to point out their idiocy, including your own.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Huffington Post, idiocy, iran

# posted by Travis @ 1:09 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Well it's about time we started getting serious about the threat from Iran. 

The Pentagon is preparing to build a military base near the Iraq-Iran border to try to curtail the flow of advanced Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday in its online edition.

Quoting Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, the Journal said the Pentagon also plans to build fortified checkpoints on major highways leading from the Iranian border to Baghdad, and install X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at the only formal border crossing between the two countries.

The base will be located about four miles from the Iranian border and will be used for at least two years, according to the report. U.S. officials told the paper it is unclear whether it will be among the small number of facilities that would remain in Iraq after any future large-scale U.S. withdrawal.

Once we start showing the Iranian's that we're not messing around and that any support of the insurgency will result in swift and severe reprisals, they'll start acting a lot more friendly then they are now.  Let's face it, the Iranian government is full of cowards and the only reason why they are supporting the insurgency and taking pot shots at our guys is simply because they know they can get away with it.  Show them they can't, and it stops.  It'll also have the added benefit of dealing with their nuclear program.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: insurgent, iran, US

# posted by Travis @ 12:44 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

Some people are just too dumb for words.  Case in point, yet another Huffington Post blogger, Paula Gordon.  She writes an "open letter" to Nancy Pelosi telling her to not to authorize any attacks on Iran.

Here's her reasoning:

A plan is not an action and stories about America attacking Iran have been floating around for years. However, given:
• the deteriorating condition of Iraq,
• setbacks in Afghanistan,
• overextended and depleted U.S. military,
• astonishing cost of the Iraq adventure and related actions (threatening the economic viability of the nation and demonstrably diminishing the quality of life),
• ongoing intelligence failures (c.f., Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner),
• the demonstrated inability of this Administration to plan for what-happens-next (e.g., Amb (ret) Peter Galbraith's The End of Iraq:  How American Incompetence Created a War Without End),
• the potentially catastrophic consequences of attacking Iran,
• the inattentiveness of mainstream media,
• the Administration's arrogant disregard of the Constitution, the laws of the land and the people's will expressed through Congress,
• the messianic paranoia laced throughout this Administration, and
• the feeble response of Congress to all the above,

I think what she meant was:

Senator Pelosi,

I don't have the foggiest idea on what's going on in Iraq.  I don't know or don't care to do even the most basic research on the rumors of Iranian support of insurgents who are shooting at and murdering US troops.  I certainly don't think that we should actually retaliate against people who are shooting at US troops.

I mean, God forbid we actually DEFEND ourselves at anything.

But I'm getting off subject.  Because of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and setbacks in Afghanistan, that automatically gives the Iranians full permission to take pot shots at our guys.

I certainly can't be bothered to research Iran's support of Hezbollah, a known terrorist organization, and be deeply troubled by Iran's obvious nuclear weapons ambitions. 

I also can't put two and two together and think that maybe if the Iranians weren't supporting the insurgency in Iraq that maybe the picture in Iraq might be a LOT more better then it appears on the news.  I mean, that would make Republicans right, wouldn't it?

In closing Ms. Pelosi, I want to make sure that our friends and enemies know that we're going to back down from a fight if it gets too hard.  I want our enemies to know that if we're busy with something else, we can't be bothered to retaliate against known aggressors.  I just want everyone to know that when the going gets tough, liberals will push for withdrawal because they're pussies.

I'm pretty sure that's the gist of the article she wrote.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: idiocy, iran

# posted by Travis @ 4:00 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

That's the reading as it filtered back to Europe's foreign ministries:

Addressing the annual meeting of France's ambassadors to 188 countries, Mr. Sarkozy said either Iran lives up to its international obligations and relinquishes its nuclear ambitions — or it will be bombed into compliance. Mr. Sarkozy also made it clear he did not agree with the Iranian-bomb-or-bombing-of-Iran position, which reflects the pledge of Mr. Bush to his loyalists, endorsed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent. But Mr. Sarkozy recognized unless Iran's theocrat's stop enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we will all be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic."

It's pretty telling when the President of France is saying that you're acting up.  However, With "plans" of a three day blitz against the Iranian military rumored to be in production, Iranian President Ahmadinejad saying that he has "double proof" that the US won't attack, and that his reasoning is that he's an engineer and believes in God, you can imagine why the US is quite nervous about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Ahmadinejad told academics in a speech that elements inside Iran were pressing for compromise in the nuclear standoff with the West over fears the United States could launch a military strike.

So there are people within the Iranian government who are worried about US attacks.  Good, they should be.  And the only real way for them to not have to worry is for their nuclear ambitions to be shut down.  Or at the very least, take us up on the offer of making nuclear material available to them that cannot be made into weapons grade fuel.

But they didn't do that and now they're painted into a corner.  With looming UN sanctions coming up again, Iran is quickly running out of options to also save face on.  However, my guess is that Russia and China will either abstain from a UN Security Council vote or be prodded into voting against Iran.  Sanctions will continue because the Iranians are still a bit off from making enough fuel for a weapon, and the sanctions will get worse over time and either the Iranians will cave, or we'll all wake up to the news that the Israelis have attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. 

But it's all guesses so far.  Sooner or later, someone has to blink and Iran has much more to lose then the US does.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: iran, nuclear program, un, War

# posted by Travis @ 3:02 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Oh how I enjoy the Huffington Post.  It's completely filled to the brim with idiotic people who don't want to do even the most elementary research before they go spouting off about their cause du jour or hopping on the next bandwagon.

Case in point, this funny little article.

But details have emerged from the recent escalation that strongly indicate what many have long suspected: the Bush administration's fundamental conflict with Iran is not about its nuclear program or alleged weapons smuggling -- so far unproven -- into Iraq.

So far unproven?  What kind of rock has this idiot been hiding under?  What about the IED's?  What about the weapons?  What about the captured insurgents saying they trained in Iran?  What about the sniper rifles that were ordered by the Iranian government and then sent into the hands of insurgents?

Unproven?  Yeah, maybe if you're an idiot or are completely blind to the evidence at hand.

Here is something very simple Congress could do to indicate that they are serious about preventing the Bush Administration from provoking a war with Iran. They could mandate that U.S. forces in Iraq cannot arrest Iranian government officials who can prove that they are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless they have explicit authorization from the "sovereign" Iraqi government to do so.

The problem with that line of thinking is that we never could have arrested the Iranian diplomats who were actively helping the insurgency kill US troops.  When you tie the hands of people who are trying to do their job, it only hampers their ability to do that job.

What this moron is asking US troops to do is ludicrous.  They have every right to arrest and detain anyone they think may be committing a crime or working against US interests.  These people were arrested and then released. 

So you're telling me that US soldiers are supposed to believe a hotel manager over their own gut feeling?  If this idiot had his way, even if there was evidence of wrong doing, they couldn't arrest them.

This is the same kind of defeatism that liberals keep pushing for on and on again.  Tie the hands of those who are trying to do their job, then complain when they can't do their job to the best of their ability.  Ignore overwhelming evidence that Iranians are actively fighting a proxy war with US troops in Iraq while complaining when US soldiers arrest someone for a reason they thought was justified.  There are Iranian agents in Iraq right now with and without the permission of the Iraqi government.  That doesn't mean that they get free reign of the country and aren't above suspicion.

Maybe if Iran wasn't supporting the insurgency, they wouldn't be getting treated this way.

Personally, if we find out where a bomb factory is or a training facility, I think we should bomb it to rubble, even if it's on the Iranian side of the border.  No one is allowed to take pot shots at our guys and get away with it.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: idiocy, insurgent, iran, iraq

# posted by Travis @ 3:50 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Ok, so if the Iraqi's are pissed that Iran is shelling into their territory against the Kurds.  Rightfully so.  But now it appears that the Iranians are ignoring the Iraqi request to stop.

"Yes, there is a group that opposes the government of Iran, the PJAK, which moves inside the Iraqi border. But this does not justify continuous daily shelling," he said.

"We are not so weak that everyone can interfere and fire shells across our border and we would not do anything about it."

It appears that the Iraqi leadership might be in the beginning of a falling out with Iran.  One can only hope.  If that were to occur, the entire political landscape will change.  Even blind people can see that the Iranians are trying to provoke a fight and say "See!  They attacked us for no good reason!"  Sooner or later though, it will backfire on them.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Acts Of War, iran, iraq

# posted by Travis @ 2:49 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Sounds like a deal with the devil to me.  Of course they're willing to "help out" in Iraq.  They've been taking pot shots at our guys for quite some time now and they'd be happy to step in and loot the country that they fought for a long 8 years in the 80's.

But that doesn't deter one politician.  One who sees through their bullshit rhetoric and is willing to call them on their nuclear program:  Bush?  Nope.  Blair?  Nope.  France's President Sarkozy.  FRANCE?  Let me look at that report again.  Yep, says France. 

Sarkozy is saying that if diplomacy doesn't work, then airstrikes against their nuclear program are certainly in order.

"This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," he said, adding that it was the worst crisis currently facing the world.

Sarkozy criticized Russia for its dealings on the international stage. "Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality," he said.

"When one is a great power, one should not be brutal."

Energy disputes between Russia and neighbors such as Belarus and Ukraine have raised doubts in Europe about Moscow's reliability as a gas exporter. It supplies Europe, via its neighbors, with around a quarter of its gas demands.

Sarkozy had warm words for the United States, saying friendship between the two countries was important. But he said he felt free to disagree with American policies, highlighting what he called a lack of leadership on the environment.

I simply cannot believe this is coming from a French President.  Tough words followed up with diplomacy.  Now are they willing to back those words up, or are they simply empty words?  The Iranian government thinks they are empty words.

They call him "inexperienced" and dismiss his words.  That might be a dangerous thing to do Iran.  You simply have no idea if there's a storm brewing over your continued defiance of the UN and for your calls for the destruction of Israel.

With France having it's own problems with Muslim "students" who riot and such, maybe it's time that the French are starting to grow a pair?  One would hope so.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: France, iran, military, nuclear program, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 2:12 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

So, last night I heard that my Representative Brian Baird was going to be in Vancouver doing a town hall meeting over his change in his stance in the Iraq war.  He was now supporting it and was facing his critics.  Should be fun and I'll get to see some fireworks, I thought.

Well there was and more.  First off, I arrived at Fort Vancouver High School's auditorium with about 500 other people around 7pm and sat there for a while and listened to what he had to say.

Let me tell you something, he's about the only Democrat in the whole of Congress I have respect for.  He told everyone about his conceptions of what to expect when he went to Iraq twice (at his own personal expense) and that he came back with an overwhelming feeling of things were improving from our soldiers, regional leaders and Iraqi civilians.

He also saw the carnage that can happen in Iraq and came to the same conclusion that I did a while ago:  If we leave these people, they will be slaughtered, a theocracy will be set up, and we will eventually have to go back and destroy the militants all over again.  He said he was 95% certain of that.

But while he's talking, I see a man who's over dressed for the occasion.  He's wearing a suit and tie, hair combed nicely, he just didn't fit in.  I couldn't see his face, but I thought he was with the security detail.  Then he started to talk.  I didn't catch his name at first, but he sounded REALLY familiar.  Then I heard Brian Baird say "I appreciate your opinion Mr. Soltz".

"MOTHERFUCKER!",  I thought, "it CAN'T be JON SOLTZ" can it?  Sure enough, I caught a glimpse of his face.  Sure enough it was him.  The same Jon Soltz who berated a soldier who was saying that the surge in Iraq was working at Yearly Kos for "talking about politics in my uniform".  I wrote about it earlier.

So, I decided that I'd corner Jon about his little bit of hypocrisy and see what he had to say.  After he was done berating Brian Baird (not rudely mind you), he was shaking hands, and waiting for the press to get ready to interview him.  I was standing behind him when the press were just gathering around him.  About 5 or so reporters were writing things down when I asked him these questions:

"Mr. Soltz, first off, I'd like to thank you for your service to our country".  I shook his hand because I was sincere in that regard.  Anyone who picks up a weapon and defends my country, I have an immediate respect for, regardless of their political viewpoint. 

Travis:

"Mr. Soltz, you berated a soldier at Yearly Kos for wearing a uniform while talking about politics"

Jon: 

"I acted like an asshole to that soldier.  I should have handled it better."

Travis:  "But Mr. Soltz, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical that you berated this man who wasn't talking about politics, only about the successes he's seen in Iraq after the surge, when you have a political website and there's a picture of you in uniform?"

Jon: 

Who was taken aback mind you.

"Well......I have the right to use that photo in any way I want..." and he trailed off for a second.

All the while, reporters are writing furiously.  I don't know if they were writing about what we were talking about, but they were writing as fast as they could.

Travis:

"Well Mr. Soltz, if you do have that right, which I'm not contesting, don't you think it makes you look like a hypocritical jerk if you're going to berate someone for something and then turn around and appear to do the exact same thing"?

Jon:

"Thank you for your time, I have to go talk to these people now".

I didn't push the issue as there were a lot of people around and I still didn't get to ask my questions to Brian Baird and I didn't want to be asked to leave.  But I think I got my point across.

So I listened to what Rep. Baird had to say.  He gave example after example along with facts to back up his opinion, but most of the crowd wasn't having any of it.

What I really was disgusted with was the manners of everyone in the audience.  Regardless of your stance on issues, people would shout out their opinions without waiting for anyone else to finish what they were saying.

Some people brought up the fact that we don't go into other countries that need our help, so I thought I'd stick up for Mr. Baird and said "We went into Liberia when no one else would.  How many other nations are in Liberia?"

That shut the guy up pretty quickly.  What I also noticed was the complete lack of homework done by the anti-war crowd.  They had no clue about the region, how it works, or even who the major players were. 

Several people asked why surrounding countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia weren't helping, I knew I was in for a treat.  Mr. Baird said point blank: "you don't want the Iranian or Syrian's help"  Jordan and other allies in the region aren't going to help because their view point is "we didn't have these problems before the invasion".

Mr. Baird seemed to have a good grasp on things and really had done his homework on the issue.  I must say I was very impressed by a Democrat, which as you all know, doesn't happen often.

So then one person asked why can't we just leave the mess as is.  The guy who asked it was obviously a college student who had ZERO responsibilities in his life.  Mr. Baird asked him if he broke something would he replace it or fix it?  The guy was speechless.

Then there was the run on guys.  There were dozens of people standing there waiting to ask their questions, and some people would just drone on and on about various things that were "wrong" in their head but they never actually asked a question or made a statement.  It pissed off a lot of people.  There were cat calls of "get to the point"!

Well around 11:00 last night, I finally got to my turn to ask my questions.  However, they were going to call it a night so I only got 1 minute to say my piece. 

I gave Mr. Baird a disclaimer:  "I must warn you, I'm a Republican".  His head bowed a little bit waiting for the next attack to come.  "However, I voted for you twice".  He said "Thank you".  I told him "You're the best man for the job when I voted for you, and you're the best man for the job now".  His ears perked up.

I asked Mr. Baird about the Iranian threat because of the sniper rifle situation where they bought expensive sniper rifles to fight "drug dealers" only to have hundreds of them end up in insurgents hands within 6 weeks of delivery.  I wrote about it here earlier.  As soon as I mentioned the Iranian sniper rifles being delivered to insurgents and that it was confirmed by the weapon's manufacturer, his ears and whole demeanor perked right up.

He pointed at me and agreed whole heartedly.  I got a few people who said I was lying or worse, but Mr. Baird came to my defense: "what he is saying is 100% true, that was a recently declassified document.  I'm glad you did your homework".  I looked around at the people who said I was lying and said: "Apparently you didn't do yours".  I got sneered at.

His answer wasn't as clear as I would have liked. He said that we are isolating and undermining the Iranian government with sanctions and "other methods".  He said that the Iranian threat was real and that to underestimate them or to "go it alone" would be a mistake that we would all pay for. 

But the best part was when a man behind me said "Don't bomb Iran".  So, I had enough at this point and turned to him and said: "Ok genius, if you're so smart, with the Iranians supporting a very large portion of the insurgency in Iraq, how would you combat it".  I made sure to make my comments loud enough for the auditorium to hear.  He didn't have an answer.  I asked him "Well if we're not bombing Iran, what should we do.  Don't chastise Mr. Baird if you don't have a solution yourself.  Just saying "Don't bomb Iran" isn't good enough if you don't have an alternative, so let's hear it.  We're waiting".  He again was speechless.

After 11:30, it was time to wrap things up.  Being that I actually have ideas for the Representative, I stuck around and spoke with him face to face.  I told him that the biggest complaint right now is the lack of electricity.  Most Iraqis are without electricity and have to use generators.  Using generators means that you can't power all of the stuff you want to do when you're at home, so you have to pick and choose.  That usually means the air conditioner and a few appliances at most.  I told him to get electricity up and running as quickly as possible and the insurgency will go down. 

Think about that for a moment.  If you're in 120 degree heat all day, every day, you tend to get angry and snap at the smallest things.  If you have electricity and are sitting in a 70 degree room when it's 120 outside, then you feel much better.  Besides, when you go from 70-120 degrees, you tend to want to stay inside as much as possible.

I thanked the Representative for his time, told him thanks for taking a beating, thanked him for truly researching the topic and coming to his own conclusions, even though it meant that he would be taking the road he thought was right instead of what was popular.  That to me is what leadership is about.  It means that you follow in your own heart what you think is right and what is in the best interests of the people.  No one, with the exception of Jon Soltz even began to know what they were talking about, let alone actually have been in Iraq to understand the complexities of the region.

With General Petraeus's report coming from the White House (which Baird said was a mistake), he said he agrees with General Petraeus in that we should start bringing our guys home in around the springtime if current levels of Iraqi progress holds. 

Mr. Baird also suggested that we have another town hall meeting in April to discuss any successes or failures.  He mentioned that his general thoughts are, sustain the current levels until April, then gradually bring troops home as the Iraqis start to fend for themselves.  They are already starting to show signs of standing on their own two feet, so why yank the rug out from underneath them when they are still in training wheels?

He also mentioned that there will be car bombs that go off and occasional assassinations, but it will go down.  And I believe him.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Brian Baird, insurgent, iran, iraq, Jon Soltz, nuclear program, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 11:24 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

Wow, the Deutsche bank is one of the largest banks in the world and for them and Dresdner bank to pull out of Iran signals to me that the financial squeeze is really starting to take effect.

Of course, Iran is stepping up the rhetoric:

The vice governor of the Iranian central bank, Mohammad Jafar Mojarrad, told the Financial Times Deutschland that the banks' actions could have long-term consequences.

"We are not happy with the banks' decision," he said.

"There is no guarantee that one can return when the good times are here again."

Mojarrad said that because business ties are based on trust, it would be "very difficult to re-establish trust when it has been abused."

What that tells me is that the US economic sanctions as well as the fiscal responsibilities that come with it are starting to take root in Iran.  Banks only care about money (well duh) and if they see potentially losing billions in dollars over dealing with Iran, any idiot would pull out of Iran in a heartbeat.

This is actually a very good tactic as it pushes Iran into a corner without having to extend ourselves militarily.  It allows us to drive a wedge between Iran and others, and it makes Iran think twice about it's nuclear intentions.

Just how far and how expensive does Iran want their nuclear program to get?  Hard to say, but they've backed down before under less pressure, so when the third set of sanctions comes around, you can bet that Iran will start to see that we are serious over their ambitions.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Economy, iran, nuclear program, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 1:08 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

It's pretty obvious that the Iranians are trying to drag feet on their nuclear program.  They can see that China and Russia are starting to wobble in their support over their nuclear ambitions.  Now, here's a bit of rhetoric I can stand behind:

“Iran is clearly trying to take the attention from its continued development of bomb-making capabilities, and I don’t think the Security Council will be distracted,” said Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We are continuing to move forward with other members of the Security Council on a third resolution.”

It's coming down to the wire on sanctions against Iran.  They know that their gasoline supplies are tight and any sanctions could cause a revolt in the populace.  Most Iranians are under 30 years old and they don't really like the Mullahs, Clerics, or any other secular leaders.  They enjoy western music, movies, and products, so they certainly aren't going to want to go from that to burqa's and full beards.

But wait!  There's more!

“If Iran’s leaders truly want the world’s trust, they would ... start to cooperate fully and unconditionally and suspend activities of international concerns,” said Schulte, alluding to council demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment program and stop construction of a plutonium-producing reactor.

And he's exactly right.  If Iran really was only after nuclear power, they would have a real coup on their hands to allow the IAEA to come in and take a poke around and say "See!  I told you the American's were lying!".  That would ripple throughout the Middle East as America would be seen as a provocateur and a liar.  However, because they don't, pretty much the entire Middle East is worried about Iran and it's growing influence in the region.  There are active campaigns to undermine the Iranian government and economy.

With Iran's refusal to do anything of importance with the IAEA, their chances of coming out of this unscathed is pretty slim.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: iran, nuclear program, Politics, un

# posted by Travis @ 3:08 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Labels: condemnation, iran, israel, nuclear program, un

# posted by Travis @ 11:31 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Labels: blair, iran, negotiate, nuclear

# posted by Travis @ 11:29 PM 0 Comments Links to this post