Ted wrote: BTW And please lock and load on this—You keep harping on my calling Bush a Moron when he sent the carrier group to Iran—First of all this was right in the middle of the most violent period in Baghdad with both Repubs and Dems up in arms (Oops) over Bush’s “Plan” or lack of one (Since then Bush has had to back off the slightest scintilla of potential for military action there)-- which by the way negates the presence of the Navy
As if there was a chance in hell that virtually all of the Dems and those few GOPers would have supported
any plan of Bush's that didn't call for cutting and running (which they're demonstrating right now).
The pathetic thing about it, probably even more so than the specific point of the carrier group, was what it showed. As with the Dems in Congress, there is
nothing Bush can propose that would illicit a positive response from you because
he's proposing it. That's a pretty sad commentary when we're at war.
And, btw, you still don't get the point of sending the carrier group. Bush's subsequent remarks in no way diminish the presence of the navy. He was merely trying to calm down those who are starting to scream about a potential attack of Iran. The last thing he and the war effort need is another firestorm in the press and Congress. But he's made it clear that our military will defend themselves and respond to hostile Iranian actions. He didn't give Iran a free pass to do what they like in any way. And you better damn well believe that they are more than aware that if they go too far, we're in a position to respond quickly; at least partially with that carrier group.
There are undoubtedly various military plans for dealing with Iran. My guess is that the President hasn't decided at this point whether any of them will be used before he leaves office. As usual, there are legitimate arguments both pro and con. And if we don't attack them, there is a good chance Israel will, and we may very well be drawn into that conflict.
I don't oppose diplomacy in principle, but only if we are bargaining from a strong position. There are those who have put forth credible arguments that the current push by the U.S. and Iraqi military is an effort to improve that bargaining position for eventual negotiations with Iran. We'll see.
In some ways, Bush is in a can't win situation with Iran from a historical perspective. If he attacks and severely damages their nuke program, he'll, as usual, be called a war mongerer who unnecessarily attached another country who we had no proof was preparing to attack us. But if he doesn't take strong action before he leaves office, and there IS some sort of major attack by Iran against us or our interests or they lob a nuke at Israel (call it Holocaust, part II), he'll be criticized for not doing something to stop it when he had the chance.
