Is there anything that Ms. Rice has achieved since she took over? I don't seem to recall any successes in diplomacy by her. Does anyone know of any?

Considering that Iran has already laughed at everything we do and the Allies do, in the end; it probably will take some kind of military action to stop the Iranians nuclear ambitions.

If that idiot-in-chief is so damned determined to start war with Iran, let him ride the first bomb down.

Dear Peacenics it's called Carrot and stick diplomacy.  Iran has been given the carrots for three years and given nothing back.  Now it's time to wave the stick for awhile and see what happens.  If that doesn't work you tap them on the hit with it a few times, and finally give them a big whack if the tapping doesn't work.  Diplomacy 101 for those who have forgotten and just like to bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best.  So wait to see what happens before you start crying "The sky is falling."

I saw the clip of cheney falling a sleep at a cabinet meeting while chicken little(boy george bush) was talking about iran, it made me wonder if boy george aka chicken little went and made a decision on his own, at any rate cheney was fast asleep and did not have a clue as to what was going on(nothing new there really).  reagun fell asleep at meetings and now cheney falls asleep at meetings and chicken little is always asleep, so my question is who is running the country, its no wonder things are so screwed up?

Senator Clinton continues to tout insignificant popularity polls as a sign of strength in a campaign that is more about the triangulation and divisiveness of the past than the future of America.

While Senator Clinton may be popular among Democrats, her astronomically high negatives nationwide, due in part to her huge 'baggage' and the kind of politics she's been associated with since the 90s, is a significant electability concern for Democrats who badly want to win in 2008.

Every time Americans think about the casualties of the Iraq war and the heavy price America is paying, they should remember that Senator Clinton wholeheartedly gave George Bush the authority to wage that war. The Iraq war is Hillary Clinton's war too. She can try to hide from it, but she can't run away from it.

Diplomatic strategy pressed by rice inefective?? Does any world leader take this whining yapping lapdog seriously? I doubt it.

I think it would have been better to have assembled a coalition of countries to invoke joint sanctions against Iran.  I don't know how effect these sanctions can be without that effort from other major countries.  We are, essentially, going it alone in Iraq and that's not going so well.  I also think that at some point Russia will play a very prominent role in dealing with Iran so perhaps we need to try to mend our relationship with Putin to see if some common ground might be found.  

obama and hillary are both owned by the corporate war machine, vote for someone willing to take on big business and do what's best for all, edwards

-- obama and hillary are both owned by the corporate war machine, vote for someone willing to take on big business and do what's best for all, edwards --


You think posting this crap on every article is going to convince people?

Edwards is history.  Find another candidate.

The Bush administration has learned nothing in seven years about how to mold a successful foreign and defense policy! Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, like Colin Powell before her, has been "window dressing" for the neocons who only seem to back unilateralism. Increasingly, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appears marginalized as well. The neocon drumbeat towards confrontation with Iran continues unabated, with the President talking about World War Three and mushroom clouds.

How can Rice say she will meet with her Iranian counterpart "anywhere, anytime" at the same time the U.S. imposes new sanctions? This neocon doctrine has failed each time this contorted logic is applied. Perhaps the scariest thing of all is that Vice President Cheney may be the only person in this administration capable of performing a "Clark Clifford" type of with this President. Of course, unlike Clark Clifford in the Johnson administration, Cheney is nuts!

I can't watch video on MSNBC anymore. I don't know why and the site has so far not responded to my emails. I can watch videos on CBS, ABC, CNN and YouTube, but not MSNBC. Bums me out.

Hillary Clinton in that memo in which her campaign says that Obama voted for a bill similar to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment is called the S1430 Iran Sanctions Enabling Act in March 2007. She was right that Obama was the the main sponsor of this bill.This was a binding act and  not the non-binding bill Clinton voted for recently. Both bills designate Iran as a terrorist organization so Obama does agree with her in that regard. His argument is the language between the two amendments. In the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, the language talks about diplomacy and detailed economic sanctions against Iran. In the Kyl-Leiberman bill, it contained at least six statements about military action. The biggest difference in both bills is the most important one and this is what concerns me most about the Kyl-Leiberman bill. The bill the Clinton voted on does not the language that says the U.S. does authorize the president to go to war with Iran or a similar language in the bill.

Hey Jim B. can you tell me what "carrots" we have offered to Iran? Diplomacy to the Bushies is do what we tell you without us offering you anything in return, or we will attack you. Why is it that Iran offered to have talks about this years ago and Bush said no ? Because they are not interested in diplomacy at all, just war for oil.

"...United States and its' Allies."  Allies?  What Allies?  Don't tell me Dubya talked Lichtenstein into going along with this.

The Bush administration has learned nothing in seven years about how to mold a successful foreign and defense policy! Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, like Colin Powell before her, has been "window dressing" for the neocons who only seem to back unilateralism. Increasingly, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appears marginalized as well. The neocon drumbeat towards confrontation with Iran continues unabated, with the President talking about World War Three and mushroom clouds.

How can Rice say she will meet with her Iranian counterpart "anywhere, anytime" at the same time the U.S. imposes new sanctions? This neocon doctrine has failed each time this contorted logic is applied. Perhaps the scariest thing of all is that Vice President Cheney may be the only person in this administration capable of performing a "Clark Clifford" type of role with this President, telling him what he does not want to hear. Of course, unlike Clark Clifford in the Johnson administration, Cheney is nuts! (P.S. Sorry the original post missed a few words.)

It's all talk with Cheney and Bush.  Their primary loyalty still lies with big oil and if demand goes down because the price of a barrel doubles and nobody can afford gas, it won't be good for the several 'suit and tie guys' who butter their bread.

Why send Condoleezza? She has absolutly no credentials in accomplishments. She comes off as weak and unaccomplished. Blitzkrieg is what we need. Send in the legions. Cut the Luftwaffe loose and bomb Iran into heaven. bush has taken us to this moment.

Its unbelievable that many of the Democrats in Congress can't see the blatantly obvious: Bush is going to attack Iran before he leaves office and it will be a fiasco 100 times bigger then Iraq. The Democrats in Congress are inexplicably doing absolutely nothing to stop this, with many following the administration just like they did before the war with Iraq. Congress should be asking serious questions like how does Bush plan to pay for this war? Where does Bush plan on getting the necessary troops to fight this war? Is there any plan for winning this war or are we just going to bomb the hell out of them and then magically turn Iran into a budding democracy? This is the beginning of the end of America as we know it. Bush will get his war, declare himself president until the "War on Terror" is over and ruin everything this country was built on. And all the while, Congress will do nothing.

It's all talk with Cheney and Bush.  Their primary loyalty still lies with big oil and if demand goes down because the price of a barrel doubles and nobody can afford gas, it won't be good for the several 'suit and tie guys' who butter their bread.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:25 AM)...LOL!!! Loved that post.  The coalition of the willing indeed.

I say we send Cheney to Iran and tell him it's DUCK SEASON (he'll stay awake for that).

Iran wouldn't have a chance!!

I watched the video, and again I hear "Ahmadinejad has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the map".  There is some controversy over whether or not that is what he actually said.  Here is one of many links you can find if you are curious:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_page_of_time.22_translation

What is all of the press releases and statements from Bush about? Surely we could send discreet messages to Iran if we just wanted to wave the stick. Bush is not speaking to Iran he is speaking to Americans. Every time he makes a statement lately oil prices reach a new record. Each new publicly announced threat is meant to lead the public to a certain mind set. It is to program the America mind to accept war with Iran and see no other outlet to prevent a Nuclear Iran. Just like we could not let Iraq obtain nuclear weapons. Iran may pose a real threat of obtaining weapons of mass destruction, but with the past history of our intelligence on Iraq, we may never know the real truth.

Look, this administration has been trying to start this war for years.  After 9/11, the Iranians offered us a lot, relatively speaking, and got nothing in return.  They cooperated & assisted us with information and logistics on Al Qaeda and were strongly hinting an direct dialogue.  Instead, this genius decides to label them as part of the Axis of Evil because of strong lobbying from AIPAC.  It's a sad day when I trust people like Putin more than I do my own president. This administration wants to go to war on a mere conjecture. They are disappointed when the IAEA makes progess with Iran. I would like to see the IAEA come & inspect our nuclear sites. It would only make sense to me because this administration & they supporters seem to be the aggressors.

Yes mikeeg, and as Cheney slept, he was happily dreaming of puffy little sheep joyously hopping over a fence into the arms of Bush/Cheney supporters, slitting their throats, drinking their blood and throwing them into a meat grinder to be pressed for oil and to feed on the dead.

So how do we decide what countries get to have nukes?

Amy B Portland ME -  I can't watch video on MSNBC anymore. I don't know why and the site has so far not responded to my emails. I can watch videos on CBS, ABC, CNN and YouTube, but not MSNBC. Bums me out.

Two things to try:

1) Open your eyes

2) Complain to Hillary.  By the end of the day she'll have a billion dollar government program that can help you.

Joe Ellington / "-- obama and hillary are both owned by the corporate war machine, vote for someone willing to take on big business and do what's best for all, edwards --


You think posting this crap on every article is going to convince people?

Edwards is history.  Find another candidate."



obama and hillary are both owned by the corporate war machine, vote for someone willing to take on big business and do what's best for all, edwards

 just trying to add some factual crap to this fantasy land, thanks for your support

" Diplomacy 101 for those who have forgotten and just like to bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best.  So wait to see what happens before you start crying "The sky is falling."


Oh! Like Iraq! Thanks, Snoozy!

We could devastate Iran with a massive, old fashioned calary charge if the horses' asses in BushCo (and their associates) could find heads to pair up with.

Kindalousy Rice - the perfect Sec. of State for the demented monkey president.

So how do we decide what countries get to have nukes?
Junior, DC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:21 AM)

I think the IAEA should force all countries to dismantle their nuclear programs.  Since however they do not have any jurisdiction over the major powers, it poses a problem.  Who knows?

That's a might roar, chicken hawks. Who's going to die for it?

Iran has approached us many times through the GWB administration and even provided us with prewar intelligence before the invasion of Afghanistan.  Each time they've been rebuffed by the White House.  Now we're building a big, new superbase along the Iran/Iraq border.  How obvious does it have to be that the neocons don't WANT diplomacy to work?

I came across this article in an old New Yorker magazine from January 24, 2005.  Kind of says it all about Iran, seems like they are right on target..

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”





http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124fa_fact

All this talk about Nuke em and crap reminds me of the USSR and they bomb us then we bomb them.  Why don't we just bomb the living hell out everything then we won't have a place viable to live if that's what you want.

...and this from 9/17/2007

Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:29am BST 17/09/2007



Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

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 armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".

He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."

 
Possible flash points: Click to enlarge
Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.

Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.

A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.

The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.

 



"Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with."

The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".

Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.

The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.

The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.

"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."

Rice will go down in history as the most incapable sec of state we ever had. What has she ever achieved for us. She has no clue. The Russian are back at the arm race, Europeans are detached, Iran now rules Middle east, we have lost credibility and American lives ,money. We have managed to kill thousands of people, children seperated families. we are the most hated nation within 1.0 billion muslim and asian countries

During cold war, there was a real threat against U.S., just compare it with Iran. They had already atomic bomb, they had already ballistic missiles targeted to U.S., now compare strategies of president Reagan with J.W. Bush. I wonder if he was the president at the time, what he want to do?

The fact is that, president Reagan made decision based of America's National Interest, but Bush administration makes decision based on his feelings and also lobby groups interests.

I am wondering maybe Saudi Arabia is behind these decisions. They are the number one in oil production. I think they made a contract with Bush and Chenny to invade Iraq and they are paying for that. I also believe that Israel is the main benefiter.

Somebody must stop this administration right now. They are mad, they are looser, they are trying to hide their mess in Iraq. They have no authority to make such a big decisions anymore. America need a referandom about the Iraq war and also an early election for president. Wake up America, don't allow other countries spend your taxes any more. Why education still is not free in U.S. after these golden years? Why most part of your national treasure must be spend in military actions?

Artie G, Little Falls NY

Thanks for the big ole' cup of hate. You should fit right in on First Read.

With the continued support of Iran to Hezbollah, Hamas & Islamic Jihad, there is no peaceful solution. Surgical strike and knocking down iran nuclear facilities is the only practical solution for the Mullahs to realize that US means what the world wants. Why wait for the Mullah to have nuclear weapon before they negotiate? AS of now they have not develop yet a nuclear weapon but already creating instability. Why wait?

"the diplomatic strategy pressed most vigorously by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been ineffective"

-- I thought I followed the news very closely yet I completely missed all the reporting on her vigorous diplomacy with Iran. Is this a complete fabrication or is there actually photos of her shaking hands with Iranian leaders and sitting down at a negotiating table with them, putting forth reasonable proposals, listening and responding to their concerns, give and take, etc.? Can anybody tell me what this "vigorous" effort consisted of?

George W. Bush has the diplomatic skills of a doorknob.  The sabre rattling is so much hot air that makes us look foolish, no only to the Iranian government, the other governments in the Middle East, and finally to the world at large.  The case for war with Iran has not been made.  Our Nation has been taken into one massive military blunder based on lies, deceit, dishonor and disinformation.  It will not happen again. Playing the fear card, will not work for the apparently treasonous George W. Bush and his corrupt Vice President.

"the diplomatic strategy pressed most vigorously by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been ineffective"


yah - when EXACTLY was this?

If these blood-starved parasite chicken hawks would make some actual attempt at diplomacy instead of just giving it lip service on their headlong rush to war it would be different. But they don't.

(I meant "cavalry charge.")

It's obvious Bush and everyone in his Administrtion has nothing on their minds but war, war, war.  They have no other agenda, no ideas, no diplomacy, no understanding of international relations other than to bully those (including U.S. citizens) who disagree with them.  They think they are protecting the world but are, in fact, endangering the world.  There is nothing "conservative' about this President or any of his supporters.  They do not believe in democracy or open government.  They rely on fear and bellicose statements to further their narrow, right wing agenda.  This is the most dangerous Administration the U.S., and the world, has ever had to endure.  Conservatives who support this President and this Administration should be ashamed for he (Bush) will surely do anything he can to take this country into yet another ill-conceived conflict in a heartbeat.  And then he will skip off to Texas with nothing but his trademark smirk on his face.  Jan 1, 2009 cannot come too soon.  Lets just hope we all survive.

mikeeg [[I saw the clip of cheney falling a sleep at a cabinet meeting while chicken little(boy george bush) was talking about iran,]]

Actually, it was an emergency meeting about the fires in California -- a boring domestic issue. If the meeting had been about bombing Iran, Cheney would have not only stayed awake, he would have been bouncing up and down in his chair and trembling with excitement.

From: Bush setting America up for war with Iran
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington

Quote:

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

"No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen."

Unquote.

I would add, no one inside the Bush inner circle knows what is going to happen either! That was the problem with Iraq; no plan, no exit strategy, no accountability.

The problem with the notion of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities is that it is only a delaying tactic - nothing more, nothing less. Since the danger (if any) is not immediate, Bush/Cheney should leave it to the next administration. The neocons f***ed up Iraq, we don't need a repeat performance.

The push to do this is evidence of Dubya's fear of the U.S. electorate. Don't be surprized when "blue states" are added to the target list before November 2008. This "war on terror" has become an assault on reason.  

By the way Dubya, how are you doing in trying to locate Osama bin Laden?

It looks like Cheney/Bush have passed the point of no return: they want to start a new war with Iran no matter what. See this article:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Request_to_fit_B2_bombers_with_1025.html

The Bushies say they need 88 million dollars to modify B2 Stealth bombers to carry bunker buster bombs because there's "an urgent operational need from theater commanders." The only place where it would be necessary to use Stealth bombers to carry the bunker busters is Iran.  

Unless the Democratic "leadership" grows a spine soon, the war will start sometime between January and the 2008 election. Neither Clinton nor Obama have shown any leadershi[p on this. Clinton voted for the insane resolution to declare part of Iran's military to be a terrorist organizaton, which is close to a declaration of war. Obama didn't even bother to show up for the vote. It looks like there's going to be another calamity worse than Iraq.

Yeats poem could have been written about the political situation in the United States today about the "passionate intensity" of the extremists running our government and  the Democrats, "lack all conviction:," too fearful to be an effective opposition:

============================
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of "Spiritus Mundi"
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

-- William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming"

it really is deja vu all over again--haven't we run up enough debt yet?  Does Bush have to totally destroy our economy before he 'finally' leaves?  What scares me even more is that all the major candidates are right there with him (excluding Ron Paul, as a lone voice for reason)  It is time to Wake Up America---if we keep borrowing from China, we may all find we're learning chinese, not spanish in the USA!

R. Merrell - I'm with you entirely.  I don't know about you, but I am terrified of this Administration and can't believe the Democrats have become GW's largest enablers.  I consider this Administration on the same level as any other terrorist organization on the planet.  The only difference is that GW has the power.  The elections in 11/2006 clearly tried to remove this type of runaway power to no avail.  Why are the Democrats forsaking their large constituent base of American voters?  They have the power of the purse strings and could easily bring this corrupt Administration to a screeching halt.  Yet, they choose to enable them and encourage this type of madness.  I feel like they are all just flipping the bird to the American public and are blinded by their own special interest power machine.  America's in big, big trouble!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):