Just answer the questions...
 

One might even say that, once Saddam was defeated militarily, the Mission was Accomplished.

But only a traitor would say that. Why do you hate America, RT?

Misrouted Mail
 

Remarkable that a so-called patriot would decline the chance to represent a G-d-fearing American who won multiple Congressional Medals of Honor as a civilian battling cannibalism in the American West. Sad day.

S_A_M

ticking time bombs
 

No, although I suspect some want to torture potential terrorists if they think it would help get information.

I don't think that the implication you've drawn from the passage is the one intended by the author.

S_A_M

ticking time bombs
 

no he didn't intend that. but for his "alternative" to make any sense at all it is a necessary implication.

ticking time bombs
 

Or, you know, not. But then we already knew that reality isn't really your thing.

ticking time bombs
 

humor me. go ahead and tell us what the man's point is. how does he relate torturing a guy to get info to raping your kid to get info?

and I think everyone here knows you have fewer digits in your IQ score than the rest of us- well "than most of us" if GGG is posting.

political gain over the national interest
 

President Bush's advisors have been telling the New York Times that they put off necessary changes to our strategy in Iraq to prevent the GOP from suffering even worse losses in the mid-term elections:

• Many of Mr. Bush's advisers say their timetable for completing an Iraq review had been based in part on a judgment that for Mr. Bush to have voiced doubts about his strategy before the midterm elections in November would have been politically catastrophic.

NYT

It's the flip side of what Spanky was baselessly accusing unnamed Democrats of doing, and presidential advisers are the source for the article. So, cue Spanky to say that the NYT is making it up.

ticking time bombs
 

Well, gee, I'm kinda slow and all, but I am pretty sure that it wasn't to suggest that deep down in places they don't talk about, our law enforcement officials secretly get their rocks off on torturing people. On the other hand, I am willing to bet he thinks that they do want to do everything they can do be able to do their jobs.

Or perhaps he was getting at the idea that people may be tempted to do something that they otherwise would find morally objectionable, and maybe we shouldn't base moral or policy decisions based on an unrealistic scenario that plays to that temptation.

political gain over the national interest
 

Actually, I'd expect him to say that there was nothing wrong with timing the Administration's internal policy review to be concluded after the election, because almost no politician would have done differently. That's just rhe way it is, nature if the beast, etc.

Such a response would seem to be disconsonant with some of his criticisms of some Democrats, but we'll see.

S_A_M

P.S. It was Bill Clinton -- that paragon of integrity -- who said: "First, you've got to get elected."

political gain over the national interest
 

Thank you, David Broder.

political gain over the national interest
 

John Conyers. Crook.

Feel free to discuss.

political gain over the national interest
 

We can't all be bloggers.

S_A_M

political gain over the national interest
 

Are you refering to something other than the misuse of his staff's time? Because that doesn't seem so outrageous, sitting here in Illinois.

And knowing what more than a few federal judges have their clerks do, the personal errand and babysitting stuff seems a non-issue.

From Stratfor
 

What Isreal plans to do about Iran nukes. One thing this article does seem naive on is the possibility of Saudi Arabia and Isreal "sittinng down".

No matter how much common ground, I believe the hatred of Isreal is so intense in Saudi Arabia there will never be (at least in the near future) a meeting of minds between them and Isreal.



Geopolitical Diary: Israel's Options Against Iran

The Institute for National Strategic Studies, a Tel Aviv-based think tank with strong ties to the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, released its annual report on Tuesday, saying Israel is technically capable of independently carrying out military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.

Israel undoubtedly has been displeased by the manner in which Washington has mishandled Iraq, while Iran has used the situation to reinforce the perception of U.S. weakness and advance its agenda of becoming a nuclear powerhouse in the region, placing it in competition with Israel. With the United States currently lacking any solid options to contain Iran via a political resolution in Iraq, there has been intense speculation over the possibility that Israel might have to get its hands dirty and take military action against Iran -- with or without U.S. cooperation.

Israel's patience might be wearing thin, but an Israeli strike against Iran in the coming year is still unlikely. The Iranians have learned well from the pre-emptive Israeli airstrikes against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 that effectively squashed former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's development of the country's nuclear weapons. Whereas Iraq concentrated its facilities at Osirak, the Iranians have strategically spread out their nuclear sites, several of which can only be penetrated using tactical nuclear bunker buster bombs. Even using these weapons in a sustained air campaign, the Israelis' ability to wipe out Iran's widely dispersed nuclear capability in a first-strike offensive is questionable.

Nonetheless, the Israelis do have an interest in halting Iran's expansion of power and setting back the Iranian nuclear program. This idea would be privately welcomed in much of the Arab world, particularly in Saudi Arabia, which would gladly let the Israelis take the heat for containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and putting a lid on the expanding Shiite power in the region. If anything can get the Saudis and the Israelis to sit down together and talk, it's Iran.

But in Israel's current state of military and political paralysis -- a result of the 2006 summer conflict with Hezbollah -- military action against Iran is not at the top of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's to-do list. Israel recognizes the downside to launching a unilateral attack against Iran. If the military option is to be used, Israel sees the value in having U.S. forces that are well-positioned in Iraq to help carry out the attacks. The problem is that the United States simply cannot risk engaging Iran militarily while Iraq is hanging by a thread. And a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran at a time when the United States is in a severely weakened position in Iraq would further undermine U.S. capability in the region, and place Israel in a more vulnerable position vis-a-vis Iran and its proxies there. The political arrangements Washington has painstakingly attempted in Baghdad would unravel if Iran were to hold the United States complicit in Israel's actions, and Tehran would not hesitate to up its militant assets in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories in order to strike at Israeli and U.S. targets.

The Israelis have a small window of four to five years before Iran develops a weaponized nuclear program. With these considerations in mind, Israel must prioritize the various threats against its national security. For Israel to seriously consider a military option against Iran down the road, it will have to first deal with the pending issue of neutralizing Iran's main proxy on Israel's northern border: Hezbollah. Part of the Israeli decision to engage Hezbollah in a full-scale conflict in 2006 likely involved the need to degrade the group's military capabilities and deprive Iran of one of its key assets in the region. Though that plan did not pan out, Israel is bound to revisit the issue in the coming year.

From Stratfor
 

I also doubt that Israel and Saudi Arabia would "sit down," but I think the statement that the Saudis would be happy to see Israel deal with Iran (and take the heat for it) is accurate.

They hate Israel, but they hate and fear Iran.