This Talk of Cheney Running in 2012 Should Remain Talk: I Wouldn’t Support Him

An MSNBC columnist pointed out in a recent column that the conservatives do not yet have a viable candidate to run against President Obama in 2012. He raised a few possibilities: Sarah Palin, John McCain (the not-conservative), and Dick Cheney.

John Meacham thinks that Cheney should run, so that voters will have an opportunity to cast a “final judgment” on the Bush years.

I don’t think so.

Dick Cheney should stay retired, and out of the media. He’s more of a hindrance than he is a viable choice to take on Obama. It’s not his qualifications that I’m questioning, but his judgment. Aside from the fact that he’s disregarded presidential traditions by criticizing the new Administration immediately after leaving office, I disagreed with most of his public stands as they were too far to the right, were reactionary, ill-conceived and war hawkish. And when Iran re-appeared on the radar screen, it was Cheney who was beating the war drums the loudest. That scared me. I was glad that Bush and Cheney left office before they got us into a war with Iran too.

Our side didn’t find WMDs in a bunker in the Iraqi desert like I thought they were going to. That was the entire rationale for going into Iraq in the first place. Cheney’s never admitted to the mistake, which causes issues with more than a few voters, including me.

Cheney presents the image of a man with his finger poised on the little red button, just itching for an excuse to press it. What the red button controls is of equal importance; is it a paper shredder with the Constitution loaded up and ready to shred? Or is it the control that will empty all the missile silos?

I hope Cheney is enjoying his retirement. I like the current administration even less than I like Cheney, and his influence on America’s foreign policy would be a prime target for Obama to go after. This needs to be a one-term President; he needs to be turned out on Election Day.

No thank you on Cheney. We need someone who has broader appeal.

Obama Administration Cancels Missile Defense Program on 70th Anniversary of Soviet Invasion of Poland: Timing of Announcement SUCKED

Poland is reacting very badly to the cancellation of the U.S. missile shield that would have been partially based on Polish territory.

For whatever reason, the Obama Administration decided to announce the change in plans on a dark day in Polish history: the 70th anniversary of the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, which lead to decades of eventual Soviet rule, once the Nazis were driven from Poland.

The Poles are still very sensitive to the symbolism of this day, and our government chose this day, out of 365 days available in the year, to leave the Poles feeling like we're abandoning them. Again.

Couldn't they have chosen a better day?

Pentagon Rethinking Two War Strategy: It's About Time!

The Pentagon appears to be rethinking it's policy of being prepared to fight two major wars simultaneously and still having enough force left to put up a fight somewhere else.

This policy has been in place since World War II and has been the cornerstone of American military strategy . But they're re-examining the policy now that America has had two wars going on for over six years, and their resources are stretched mighty thin.

With 170,000 soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have the necessary conventional ground forces to stop a North Korean attack on South Korea or a Chinese attack on Taiwan if trouble were to break out in that part of the world right now. The Navy and Air Force would have to carry the fight to the enemy until ground troops could be redeployed in a huge hurry.

Secretary Gates is engaged in a top-to-bottom review of every aspect of planning for wars of the future. Budgeting, weapons purchases, staffing, training, and the entire gambit of planning that goes into equipping a military force is being looked at.

I'm relieved that they're looking at this, though I am troubled that it's taken six years for them to get around to it. This should have been talked about much more thoroughly before troops were sent into Iraq.

The sooner the military wraps things up in Iraq, the sooner balance can be restored to the international scene. A threat of military force against an aggressor is only effective if there is muscle behind it. North Korea has realized this, and has effectively called our bluff. They realized that no American army will materialize to threaten them if they rattle their sabers around a bit while we're still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran is playing the same game; so is Venezuela. "When the cat's away the mice will play" seems to be the strategy being employed by North Korea, Venezuela and Iran; pretty soon the cat will be back, and those mice are going to start running for their lives.

Then we'll see how much they enjoy our undivided attention.

CIA Plays It Safe With Intelligence Estimate of Iran's Nuclear Program: They Didn't Want War Hawks in White House to Get Us Into Another War

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recently released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program and concluded that the Iranians had stopped their nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure.

This effectively took several options off the table for the Bush Administration, left the Israelis fuming, had the European Union both cheering and shaking their heads in confusion, and the Iranians crowing "See, we told you so." And Iran's neighbors are now very nervous too.

I think the CIA didn't want another statement coming out of its ranks that would be seized by the war hawks in Washington as George Tenet's "slam dunk" comment was in 2003, with regards to Saddam Hussein's possessing banned biochem weapons in the lead-up to the Iraq War. CIA definitely didn't want this Administration to launch another war based on incomplete or faulty information.

That's already happened once; and CIA was roasted alive. Now they're playing it safe when they should be aggressively pushing to get more people on the ground inside Iran. "We're kind of sure" WON'T cut it.

Iran Considers Nuclear Matter a Closed Political Topic; Wants Discussion to Focus on Legal and Technical Aspects

Iran's President had his fifteen minutes in front of world leaders on Tuesday, and he let everyone who was listening have it.

"It" was a rambling speech against the West and against the Security Council. He declared the political aspect of the debate against Iran's nuclear program "closed" and wanted the discussion to focused on technical and legal issues.

Fat chance.

Iran does have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology as every nation does, but the "peaceful" part is being questioned in Iran's case, as it has threatened to blow Israel off the map and is shipping bombs across their border into Iraq. Their posture is anything but peaceful.

Iran has every intention of developing nuclear weapons. His blatant lies at Columbia University and the fact that he denied it is all the proof we need. Iran wants blood, not peace.

Iranian President Looked Like a Two-Bit Dictator at Columbia University: Debate Over His Appearance Likely to Continue

When I heard that Columbia University had invited Iran's two-bit terrorist thug/President to speak before his address to the U.N. General Assembly, I was not happy. How could a university invite a murderer and a terrorist to it's campus to speak, yet allow an on-stage assault on a Minuteman speaker last year?

And then they took the trouble to invite him back for a speech this year, then dis-invited him.

Columbia's double-standard on speakers is astonishing. They'd rather invite someone whose troops and bombs have killed HUNDREDS of American troops in Iraq and THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians. This is deeply offensive.

The aggressive posturing of Columbia's president in his introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the subsequent question & answer session (which was amusing and showed who this man really is--a terrorist, a liar, a Holocaust denier and a total idiot) did not lessen the offense that Columbia committed when they invited this man to speak in the first place.

Columbia's statement about being open to free speech by all is a quaint lie as well. They stood by as Columbia students charged the stage while the Minuteman was giving his speech last year; all they did was show Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist the door.

Hypocrisy is alive and well at Columbia.

France Tells the World to Prepare for War Against Iran: Believes Force Will Be Required to Stop Iran's Renegade Nuclear Program

France's foreign minister told the world that a war with Iran may be necessary to put a stop to Iran's nuclear program once and for all.

Oh, really?

And how many troops, aircraft and ships will France and the rest of the world be contributing toward fighting this war? And is France willing to duke it out with Russia and China in the U.N. Security Council? And how many minesweepers will it send to the Persian Gulf to help clear the minefields that Iran is sure to deploy if fighting does break out?

Let France and its allies lead the fight against Iran, and we'll support them for a change instead of us carrying the workload and begging the world for help. We have two wars to wrap up before we mix it up with Iran.

Some Candidates Want to Substitute One War for Others: What's the Point?

A lot of the Presidential candidates have come out opposed to the war in Iraq, but have made some comments in recent weeks and months about starting wars elsewhere.

Obama wants to send troops into Pakistan to fight al-Qaeda. This could easily translate into a seizure of Pakistan's nuclear weapons if radicals capture control of the government of Pakistan while U.S. troops are in the country hunting for bin-Laden. While doing that may not be a bad thing, it would be inserting U.S. forces into an already complicated situation.

Dodd is open to using force against Iran. So is Clinton, Edwards (while pushing for a nonaggression pact with Iran), Obama (who has also said that it would be a "profound mistake to initiate war with Iran"), Giuliani (who might use a first strike option with nuclear weapons), McCain, and Romney.

I don't like this idea of pulling troops out of Iraq and sending them straight after Pakistan or Iran. If we're going to pull the troops out, they should do it, then retool and rebuild the military first. Sending a weary army into Iran against an enemy who's spoiling for a fight is not a good idea.

I think they ought to postpone the tough talk and deal with problems we already have, not talking about making more problems.

Immigration Bill's Failure Proves We Have a Lame-Duck President AND Congress: This is a Caretaker Government Until the Next Election

It's become clear that we have a caretaker government filled with placeholders who are awaiting the next election.

Both parties are badly splintered; both are split on the Iraq War and immigration. An up-or-down vote of no-confidence on Alberto Gonzales' leadership of the Justice Department died on the Senate floor. Congress members have been reduced to threatening to kill one another's pork projects in appropriations bills.

I think I would prefer it if this Congress and President stuck to naming federal buildings, handing out medals, and the like. They are clearly out to do their own business and not the business of the American people.

Immigration reform? Not with this crowd. No way. They all but gave away our southern border with their last attempt at immigration reform.

Resolving the Iraq War? Forget it. Hopefully the generals or Iraq's government tell President Bush that it's time for American forces to leave, and he listens to them, regardless of what this Congress is doing.

Gonzales? Nope.

Dealing with Iran? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

President Bush is fighting both Democrats and Republicans and achieved a stalemate with the Democrats...and with his own party.

And the Democrats are blowing it BIG time. Their control of Congress is a joke; and news came this week that their approval rating has dropped to 29%, which is lower than President Bush's 33% approval rating. One commenter has observed that Congressional approval ratings have returned to 2006 pre-election levels.

This is really the party that swept back into power last November?

Iranian President Should Have Apologized to British Navy Members For Waylaying Them, Not The Other Way Around: SICKENING

News hit this morning that Iran was releasing it's hostages that it had taken nearly two weeks ago in the Persian Gulf, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was shown receiving the gratitude of the captive British sailors and marines, one at a time. It was a SICKENING display of manipulation on international television.

Ahmadinejad should have been the one apologizing for invading Iraqi waters and waylaying a British boarding party that was doing it's job under a United Nations mandate.

Sick and wrong.

British/Iranian Crisis is Latest Excuse for Oil Prices to Increase: Oil Speculators At It Again

Let's see where increased oil prices fit into this latest Persian Gulf controversy:

1. British Navy intercepts cargo ship to inspect it in disputed Iraqi/Iranian waters...
2. Iran seizes 15 British sailors and marines who were the boarding party and take them to Tehran for questioning....
3. Britain and Iran exchange angry words....
4. Reports of U.S. and Iranian troops exchanging fire inside Iraqi territory. U.S. troops retreat out of fear of being taken hostage....
5. Iran is isolated from the international community...again.
6. Bush, Blair and Iran's terrorist president start the blame game anew.
   

How much has the oil supply fallen as the result of the British/Iranian row? NOT A DROP.

Has the Strait of Hormuz been closed to international shipping? NOPE.

Has the Strait been mined? NOPE.

Has Iran threatened to sink any tankers? NOPE.

Any refineries set ablaze? NOPE.

Any oil production facilities damaged or destroyed, leading to a drop in oil production? NOPE.

Any net effect whatsoever on the available oil supply? NONE.

Any tidal waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, or other natural disasters that could explain the price increases? NOPE.

Hmmm....

Are the oil speculators worried? Yep.

So, in spite of the fact that there is no decrease in oil output from the ongoing feud between Britain and Iran, and the oil supply is unaffected, the price for a barrel of oil has gone way up again.

The oil speculators and oil companies should pay for the artificial increases that they've created WITHOUT charging more at the pump. The British/Iranian issues are irrelevant to the cost of a barrel of oil, unless the missiles start to fly. Enough of the excuses, already!

Iranian Capture of 15 British Troops is a Repeated Violation of the Iraqi Border: Iranian Troops Captured in Recent Months Were in Iraqi Territory Too

A lot of people are waiting for the British Navy to sink the entire Iranian Navy in reprisal for the seizure of 15 British sailors and marines in Iraqi waters by the Iranian Navy.

They apparently roared in on their gunboats and took an entire British boarding party prisoner while still on the Iraqi side of the maritime border.

The British were carrying out a U.N.-mandated inspection of a seagoing vessel when they were captured.

Iran apparently has a great deal of trouble determining where the Iran/Iraq border actually is. Members of their Revolutionary Guard have been caught aiding insurgents on the Iraqi side of the border--some of them as far into Iraq as Baghdad itself.

So it should come as no surprise that Iran is continuing to violate the sovereignty of Iraq's borders. But this hostage-taking maneuver is highly unusual. They were probably hoping that the men (and woman) that they seized were Americans to put pressure on Washington to release Iranian terror operatives who were captured in Iraq or "disappeared" while in third countries.

Should be interesting to see what comes of this.

Government Seizes Four Retired F-14 Tomcats To Prevent Iran From Getting Its Hands on Spare Parts

The government seized four retired F-14 Tomcats today that were insufficiently prepared to be put on display this morning. Under the law, all military aircraft need to be demilitarized and be made incapable of flight. Apparently these four aircraft were not sufficiently dismantled enough.

One of the fighters was used as a prop for USA Network's popular "JAG" series. Another was said to still have military grade afterburners.

Iran is the only nation on earth that flies the F-14 as part of it's air force now; the U.S. retired it's entire fleet of F-14s last year due to the cost of operating them and the amount of time needed on the ground to keep them in the air. Government officials were worried that Iranian agents could acquire needed parts from the retired aircraft to service their F-14s.

Iran is scouring the globe for parts for the fighter; many are not airworthy anymore, and those that are need a lot of work. The U.S. recently banned selling of F-14 parts worldwide, partly out of concern that the parts could be transferred to Iran.

The four F-14s seized were at airports in California.

Bush Administration Chooses New Nuclear Warhead Design; Critics Charge Hypocrisy in Move As Negotiations With North Korea and Iran Continue

The Bush Administration has chosen a new nuclear warhead design to replace aging warheads sitting atop ICBMs for more than twenty years.

The move is to match Russia’s announced upgrading of their entire nuclear missile inventory back in December of last year. The timing of the U.S. announcement couldn’t have come at a worse time.

With nuclear negotiations ongoing with North Korea and Iran, the move will undoubtedly be seen as hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. in upgrading its nuclear arsenal while talking to other nations about not developing their own nuclear arms.

There is a very fine line that Washington needs to walk at this moment, and announcing a new nuclear warhead design and plans to replace obsolete ICBMs with state-of-the-art ones isn’t a real smart idea.

North Korea’s already screaming about it; how far behind can Iran be?

Sunni Terror Groups Strike At Iranian Government: Islamic Press Claims Bombs Were Manufactured in U.S.

A radical Sunni terror group launched a series of terror attacks in and around the city of Zahedan, Iran, over the last week, killing Revolutionary Guard militia members and prompting the Islamic press to claim that the bombs were American built.

That idea is ludicrous as Iran makes it's own bombs and has a black market for those Iranian bombs. It's more likely that they were Iranian-built bombs bought on Iran's black market, which has also supplied weapons to Iraqi insurgents too.

This is the Iranian press and government trying to blame their terrorist problems on other governments, despite Tehran's probable involvement in training these terrorists for action in Iraq. They didn't take into account the possibility that their terror trainees were going to take their weapons and use them on the people who are their real enemies--the Iranian military.

That's as good an explanation as Iran's, and probably not far off the mark either.

In any case, Iran should go bark up it's own tree.

Iraqi Government Says One Thousand People Died in Last Week: They Need to Get in Gear

A major crackdown from the Iraqi government cannot come soon enough, as the government there announced 1,000 people died in the last week alone.

That's WITH Iraqi and U.S. military forces in action, with an operational Iraqi government and a supportive U.S. government pushing for the Iraqis to do more to stabilize their country.

It's hard to imagine how bad things would get if U.S. and coalition troops pulled out immediately as some are suggesting.

It might make the slaughter in Rwanda and Darfur look tame by comparison.

"Peace at any cost" is a popular mantra of the anti-war movement, but the cost could be much worse than anyone thinks.

Sunni governments would begin mass shipments of weapons to the Sunni side to help them (as Saudi Arabia has already promised to do if the U.S. leaves too early) kill the Shiites, who vastly outnumber the Sunnis. Iran would support the other side. Both sides would be much more heavily armed than they are now, and more than one nation would send troops in to support their side.

There would be no peace at too high a price if things aren't carefully thought out. But one thing is absolutely certain:

The Iraqi government needs to get in gear and MOVE IT.

Iraq War Limits Our Options Against North Korea, Iran and Sudan: Shortsightedness in Political Planning of Iraq War Is Biting Us Now

The U.S. involvement in Iraq is having a detrimental impact on America's foreign policy objectives and more attention needs to be paid to keeping order in America's other foreign endeavors.

Six-party talks with North Korea ended without agreement yesterday. On the agenda for the five powers talking to North Korea this Friday is whether to continue the six-party negotiating format, or to go over to something else. They're waiting to find out what impact last month's U.S. elections will have on America's foreign policy.

Sudan has until December 31st to accept a U.S.-brokered deadline to admit United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur or else face "consequences." But we don't have an ambassador at the U.N. right now to keep up the pressure. Stronger resolutions were opposed by some of the other veto-wielding nations on the Security Council.

Iran faces a weak U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an end to their nuclear enrichment program, or other (undefined) steps will be taken, leaving Iran free to do what it wants. The same powers (Russia and China) also threatened to veto the entire resolution if it wasn't watered down.

Political mistakes and manipulations by the Bush Administration in the Iraq War are backfiring big time right now. When January comes around President Bush needs to have a master plan to deal with all of these critical foreign policy situations. And this should not include unilateral military approaches to dealing with the issues.

For instance, when December 31st comes and goes, the U.S. shouldn't announce that it alone is imposing a no-fly zone over Darfur to force compliance with the U.N.'s wishes when the Sudan tells the international body what to go do with itself. And Sudan is going to do exactly that.

It also shouldn't abandon the talks in favor of unilateral miliary action against Iran or North Korea. We have one major war going on, one smaller war, and not enough available ground troops to handle much more. At this stage of the game, we won't be able to help South Korea with sizable U.S. ground forces if North Korea decides on one final gamble to settle the score with South Korea. All of our heavy divisions are tied up elsewhere.

And if Washington chooses to settle the Iran question with force of arms, it's likely that U.S. forces in the region will be fighting the Revolutionary Guards in Iraqi and Afghan cities as well as the insurgency, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

America's enemies are taking full advantage of the fact that the Iraq War is a tar baby and the U.S. military's strongest arm is already stuck. This perceived weakness is what is driving Iran and North Korea to be sure.

All of these problems can be dealt with if we have a cohesive strategy for Iraq, followed by a withdrawal and retooling of the U.S. military to put Iran and North Korea in their places.

Iranian Plan to Fingerprint Americans Entering Their Country is Fine: But Who's More Likely to Send Suicide Bombers to Attack the Other?

Iran's parliament recently passed a law that mirror-images a U.S. law (that allows for fingerprinting of all Iranian nationals entering U.S. territory) with a law that requires all Americans entering Iran to likewise be fingerprinted. Both sides require that the other's citizens go through extensive background checks. The measure is now before the Iranian Guardian Council for final approval.

Question: is it more likely that Iran would send suicide bombers to the U.S. to hit American targets, or would America send suicide bombers to Iran to attack Iranian interests?

Who was it who said they had 40,000 suicide bombers ready for attacks against Western targets if there is a U.S./Iranian military confrontation over Iran's nuclear program? It sure wasn't the U.S. who said that.

The Iranians are free to do what they want to control entry of foreign nationals into their country, but they should acknowledge that the U.S. has that same right, especially in the face of their threats.