Law, I've been pondering your question.

When do we stop negotiating, {which Bush claims we aren't doing) and start attacking?

And the answer depends upon what is really happening in Iran. If it could be shown that they are really and truly six months away from awesome nuclear capablilty, that's one thing.

If Cheney and Rice say Iran is six months away from awesome nuclear capability and we'd better strike now or we'll all die in the searing poisonous cloud of leftover missile gravy, choking and burning and begging for the sweet relief of death, that's a different thing.

The question is who to trust for the true information. I can't trust this administration, I can't take GWB or Condi or Cheney at their word for anything. So it's a real quandry for me.

So let me answer it this way. If my first scenario is correct, I would favor some kind of attack, perhaps air strikes against specific targets. This of course might escalate, but I think it's the only way to start.

In the second scenario, I'd just like to tar and feather them and ride them out of town on a rail, after which I'd dump them in the briar patch and go to the bar.

It's a little local tradition we call the "tar 'n' bar"

Oh, and my point about the mushroom cloud was not at all irrelevant. When those kind of shopworn talking point phrases are used, it raises the bullshit level, rather than the informational level, of the discussion.

Yeah, that's right. Do we accept a nucular (Jimmy Carter) Iran or do you have a better eye-dear. (John Kerry)

. o O (I just couldn't resist)

Yeah, let's do something about Iran's WMDs...

WALLACE: I want to ask you two questions about Iran. How do you weigh as a military man, as the top military man, the downside risk if either the U.S. or Israel were to militarily strike Iran in terms of blowback from Iran and its allies in the region, increased turmoil in that area, increased turmoil in the oil market?

MULLEN: I think it would be significant. I worry about it a lot. Ive said when Ive been asked this before right now Im fighting two wars, and I dont need a third one.
But I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it.
Adm. Mullen on Fox News

Mullen is fully aware that an attack on Iran would precipitate a horde of Iranian troops crossing the border into Iraq. This real possibility, coupled with the other propability that Iraqi Shi'a troops may turn on our own soldiers, should really worry any SANE military person who may care about our troops in harm's way.

CG, I did not see that ADM Mullen said he was worried about a horde of Iranian troops pouring accross the Iran-Iraq border...Nor do I see an attack on Iran as likely to precipitate Iraqi troops turning on US forces inside Iraq en masse. Indeed, I think the two are likely to be mutually exclusive. The bulk of Iraqi Shia are not especially enamored of the Iranians. You overestimate the unity their shared Shia beliefs brings them. Certainly some Shia religious leaders have close ties with the Shia clergy in Iran but that closeness most certainly does not extend to the average Iraqi. Indeed, the average Iraqi is, in my personal experience, quite concerned about the potential threat Iran poses to Iraq. Should the Iranians be so foolish as to invade Iraq in response to a US or Israeli strike on iranian nuclear facilities I strongly suspect you would see the Iraqis clamoring for MORE American troops rather than fewer. More pointedly, Iran lacks the realistic throw weight to invade Iraq given the current correlation of forces in the region. The existing US troops presence in theater is sufficient to repulse any Iranian invasion of Iraq even without Iraqi army assistance. Its a moot point anyway because if the Iranians invaded Iraq, there would be plenty of Iraqi army assistance in removing them.

A far, far more likely threat would be sharply increased Iranian support for the insurgency in Iraq couple with Iranian harassment of the US logistical tail in the Persian Gulf. Such efforts would very likely make our position in Iraq less comfortable than it is now and would certainly result in a sharp increase in the already considerable cost of operations in the region. In short, the Iranians might be able to make continuation of our large scale presence in Iraq prohibtively, evenly ruinously, expensive.

Conversation overheard while at work today. Two teenagers with their laptops were strolling through the Web. They hit on Obama's visit to Israel. They were discrying it as someting even a sitting president hasn't done recently let alone a presidentail candidate. I suggested that Obama was there to determine whether or not Israel might be really intends-ing to nuke Iran. My suggestion was met with both a giggle and a blank stare. Then both teens went on to look at the 'more important to them' websites.

Unless I'm in a parallel universe, Bush, a sitting President, visited Israel less than a month ago.

He must have been there to see if the Israelis are planning to launch a nucular attack on Iran. After all, the Israel tells ALL visiting US politicians what its strategic defense policies are...

Which kind of tellls you what the level of average American teen-age involvement is with current affairs.