Fred Thompson: I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America

Last night I linked to NRO-The Campaign Spot which posted the transcript of Fred Thompson on his Jay Leno appearance where he announced he was officially running for the Presidency and I also linked to www.fred08.com where you can watch his 15 minute video talking about the issues.

I came away with a few impressions of Fred and I am going to show you what they are and why.

First and foremost, this excerpt I am listing below says quite a bit about the man.

JAY LENO: I just wonder what we do to get a ‑‑ I grew up ‑‑ when I was a kid, John F. Kennedy was President. It was the Peace Corps, and we would send American college students to these countries, and they would love us. I think we made friendships that were good for 25, 30 years because Americans had befriended these countries. And it seems like we are not well‑liked around the world. Maybe I'm naive and maybe because I'm in show business, but it seems like I would want people to like us as a country because they think we're a ‑‑ I know we're a good country, but I wonder what we have to do to get these allies, these other countries to maybe ‑‑ what are we doing wrong?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, part of that comes with being the strongest, most powerful, most prosperous country in the history of the world. I think that goes with the territory. We're more unpopular than we need to be. That's for sure, but our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples in this country than all the other countries put together. (Applause.) And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America.

First off, Jay Leno is by no means a "conservative" and neither is his audience, that applause was genuine and loud and goes to show that people, everyday people, are still proud to be Americans and they like the fact that Fred Thompson has no qualms about being proud to be an America and loving his country. (I watched the show after having read the transcript and that was one of the things I was listening for)

Now, go back into your memory banks and do a few searches to all the latest speeches by all the presidential candidates.

Name me one, on either side of the aisle that makes it clear that America does not need to be apologized for.

Name me one that doesn't claim to love America in the same breath as they criticize everything America is and does.

Name me one that shows true pride in America and being an American without following it up with a "but" at the end.

Tell me, are YOU proud to be an American? Can you answer that without a "but" on the end of that sentence? (Click the link, read it, then come answer that question IF you can without a "but" at the end.)

Fred Thompson did.

JAY LENO: I wasn't suggesting that ‑‑

FRED THOMPSON: I know you weren't. We make mistakes. I think we can do some things better. I think part of what we've got to do with regard to the global terrorist problem I talked about is for all the forces of civilization, all of our friends and people who love freedom need to understand that this is a battle against freedom and tyranny worldwide, that the good guys need to be on one side. To the extent that we can do better in reaching out and convincing people, sharing intelligence and sharing military operations and so forth and equipment and know‑how and technology, we certainly need to do that. We have shown how difficult it is to shoulder these burdens or the greatest share of these burdens by ourselves, and we need to do that. But we need to keep it in perspective. We're probably never going to be loved by everyone as long as we're that way. Look, on the other hand, at a place like France. We've gotten more criticism probably from French leaders and French people or press than anybody else; yet they elected a person that came over here, shook President Bush's hand before the election, went back, and said, "We want to be friends with the United States," and they elected him. (Applause.) So we may have misjudged ‑‑ we may have taken some of that rhetoric coming from the leaders of that country from what the real people think. So it's not a totally clear picture.

Another great example of the rhetoric coming from politicians doesn't always echo what their supporters think. Quite often it just echoes what the loudest of those supporters think, not the majority.

Hat Tip to Hot Air, we have the video of Fred on Leno, watch it and notice one additional thing. The lack of desperation.


(6:19 second video, well worth the time)

He doesn't have the "air" of desperation that the other candidates, from both sides of the aisle have.

I have heard it said that after he officially joined the race, people would wait and see if he "sticks his foot in his mouth" as other candidates have done.... I disagree with the premise there.

A man that is not driven by polls, that does not change his mind because "popular opinion" has changed, doesn't care if what he says it liked, or appreciated, he calls them like he sees them and political correctness can be damned.

A man that says what he means and stands by it, might get criticized by those that do not like him or feel threatened by him, but you cannot stick your foot in your mouth if you stick to the truth and not what the polls tell you to say and do.

Yet another huge difference between him and the other presidential candidates.


News stories about his announcement come from NYT, Wapo, and Fox.

[Update] Hat Tip to Fred Heads USA for the email. (GAWD that name, "Fredheads", kills me every time.)

HURON - Fred Thompson won the first-ever South Dakota Republican Party Presidential Straw Poll at the South Dakota State Fair Aug. 30 through Sept. 3, 2007.

Just a point of interest.

Fred Thompson: I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America

Last night I linked to NRO-The Campaign Spot which posted the transcript of Fred Thompson on his Jay Leno appearance where he announced he was officially running for the Presidency and I also linked to www.fred08.com where you can watch his 15 minute video talking about the issues.

I came away with a few impressions of Fred and I am going to show you what they are and why.

First and foremost, this excerpt I am listing below says quite a bit about the man.

JAY LENO: I just wonder what we do to get a ‑‑ I grew up ‑‑ when I was a kid, John F. Kennedy was President. It was the Peace Corps, and we would send American college students to these countries, and they would love us. I think we made friendships that were good for 25, 30 years because Americans had befriended these countries. And it seems like we are not well‑liked around the world. Maybe I'm naive and maybe because I'm in show business, but it seems like I would want people to like us as a country because they think we're a ‑‑ I know we're a good country, but I wonder what we have to do to get these allies, these other countries to maybe ‑‑ what are we doing wrong?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, part of that comes with being the strongest, most powerful, most prosperous country in the history of the world. I think that goes with the territory. We're more unpopular than we need to be. That's for sure, but our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples in this country than all the other countries put together. (Applause.) And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America.

First off, Jay Leno is by no means a "conservative" and neither is his audience, that applause was genuine and loud and goes to show that people, everyday people, are still proud to be Americans and they like the fact that Fred Thompson has no qualms about being proud to be an America and loving his country. (I watched the show after having read the transcript and that was one of the things I was listening for)

Now, go back into your memory banks and do a few searches to all the latest speeches by all the presidential candidates.

Name me one, on either side of the aisle that makes it clear that America does not need to be apologized for.

Name me one that doesn't claim to love America in the same breath as they criticize everything America is and does.

Name me one that shows true pride in America and being an American without following it up with a "but" at the end.

Tell me, are YOU proud to be an American? Can you answer that without a "but" on the end of that sentence? (Click the link, read it, then come answer that question IF you can without a "but" at the end.)

Fred Thompson did.

JAY LENO: I wasn't suggesting that ‑‑

FRED THOMPSON: I know you weren't. We make mistakes. I think we can do some things better. I think part of what we've got to do with regard to the global terrorist problem I talked about is for all the forces of civilization, all of our friends and people who love freedom need to understand that this is a battle against freedom and tyranny worldwide, that the good guys need to be on one side. To the extent that we can do better in reaching out and convincing people, sharing intelligence and sharing military operations and so forth and equipment and know‑how and technology, we certainly need to do that. We have shown how difficult it is to shoulder these burdens or the greatest share of these burdens by ourselves, and we need to do that. But we need to keep it in perspective. We're probably never going to be loved by everyone as long as we're that way. Look, on the other hand, at a place like France. We've gotten more criticism probably from French leaders and French people or press than anybody else; yet they elected a person that came over here, shook President Bush's hand before the election, went back, and said, "We want to be friends with the United States," and they elected him. (Applause.) So we may have misjudged ‑‑ we may have taken some of that rhetoric coming from the leaders of that country from what the real people think. So it's not a totally clear picture.

Another great example of the rhetoric coming from politicians doesn't always echo what their supporters think. Quite often it just echoes what the loudest of those supporters think, not the majority.

Hat Tip to Hot Air, we have the video of Fred on Leno, watch it and notice one additional thing. The lack of desperation.


(6:19 second video, well worth the time)

He doesn't have the "air" of desperation that the other candidates, from both sides of the aisle have.

I have heard it said that after he officially joined the race, people would wait and see if he "sticks his foot in his mouth" as other candidates have done.... I disagree with the premise there.

A man that is not driven by polls, that does not change his mind because "popular opinion" has changed, doesn't care if what he says it liked, or appreciated, he calls them like he sees them and political correctness can be damned.

A man that says what he means and stands by it, might get criticized by those that do not like him or feel threatened by him, but you cannot stick your foot in your mouth if you stick to the truth and not what the polls tell you to say and do.

Yet another huge difference between him and the other presidential candidates.


News stories about his announcement come from NYT, Wapo, and Fox.

[Update] Hat Tip to Fred Heads USA for the email. (GAWD that name, "Fredheads", kills me every time.)

HURON - Fred Thompson won the first-ever South Dakota Republican Party Presidential Straw Poll at the South Dakota State Fair Aug. 30 through Sept. 3, 2007.

Just a point of interest.






.

Gordon Brown Pledges Iraq Stability Policy: Echoes John Howard and George Bush

Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised today that Britain's Iraq policy would be in keeping with the U.S. and the coalitions Iraq policies.

Brown:

"We are on exactly the same path that I have set out, which is that we will continue to discharge our obligations to the Iraqi people, that we support their democracy."

This echoes what President Bush said in his statement in front of the troops on Labor Day when he said:

But I want to tell you this about the decision -- about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media.

The cheering Hoooooowaaaahhh's of the troops at that statement can be heard on the video at the link above, telling us quite clearly what they think about the "nervous" politicians making decisions based on polls instead of conditions on the ground.

Today Bush meets with another strong leader whose previous statements regarding Iraq have been very clear about continuing to help the Iraqi people achieve the security and freedom they want, John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister.

We have posted about Howard's statements last month.

In his stance Gordon Brown is echoing the Australian counterpart John Howard who has made it clear that he will keep his forces in Iraq despite anything the UK does.

Since becoming prime minister two months ago, Mr Brown has faced similar calls to his Australian counterpart John Howard about exactly how long allied troops will remain in Iraq.

Last week, Mr Howard faced more calls to clarify comments he made which appeared to suggest he would leave Australian troops in Iraq even if other countries like Britain pulled theirs out.

Iraq is expected to dominate talks between Mr Howard and George W Bush when the US president visits Sydney ahead of the APEC summit next month.

In his letter, Mr Brown wrote that Britain had obligations to the Iraqi government and United Nations to remain in Iraq until the country's own military forces were ready.

"Decisions on UK force levels and posture in Iraq are dictated by conditions on the ground," Mr Brown wrote.

"It is wrong to say that the continuing presence of UK forces in Iraq will achieve little, or that they are severely restricted in what they can do.

"We, together with the rest of the international community, have undertaken to support the country's political and economic development through the UN-led International Compact for Iraq.

"These are commitments it is not in our interests simply to abandon."

Brown, Howard and Bush all understand the need to make sure the Iraqi's are capable of maintaining their security before any reduction in troops or withdrawal and even time lines be set, as well as making sure their is no vacuum left in Iraq for Iran or al-Qaeda to step in to further endanger our combined interests.

These three strong leaders all have one thing in common, they all understand the necessity of finishing what we have started in Iraq, seeing to it that Iraq security forces are trained and capable of protecting themselves after the coalition forces leave and are determined to not provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda or allow Iran to step in and take over by leaving a vacuum.

I thank Gordon Brown, John Howard and George Bush for not bowing to "opinion" that does not take conditions on the ground into account but is instead screamed loudly because of political games.

Follow up with Fred Kagan's excellent analysis about the fools errand that Congress set upon the GAO.

[Update] More from todays joint press conference with President Bush and John Howard.



(NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]


Gold Star Mother:




.

Gordon Brown Pledges Iraq Stability Policy: Echoes John Howard and George Bush

Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised today that Britain's Iraq policy would be in keeping with the U.S. and the coalitions Iraq policies.

Brown:

"We are on exactly the same path that I have set out, which is that we will continue to discharge our obligations to the Iraqi people, that we support their democracy."

This echoes what President Bush said in his statement in front of the troops on Labor Day when he said:

But I want to tell you this about the decision -- about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media.

The cheering Hoooooowaaaahhh's of the troops at that statement can be heard on the video at the link above, telling us quite clearly what they think about the "nervous" politicians making decisions based on polls instead of conditions on the ground.

Today Bush meets with another strong leader whose previous statements regarding Iraq have been very clear about continuing to help the Iraqi people achieve the security and freedom they want, John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister.

We have posted about Howard's statements last month.

In his stance Gordon Brown is echoing the Australian counterpart John Howard who has made it clear that he will keep his forces in Iraq despite anything the UK does.

Since becoming prime minister two months ago, Mr Brown has faced similar calls to his Australian counterpart John Howard about exactly how long allied troops will remain in Iraq.

Last week, Mr Howard faced more calls to clarify comments he made which appeared to suggest he would leave Australian troops in Iraq even if other countries like Britain pulled theirs out.

Iraq is expected to dominate talks between Mr Howard and George W Bush when the US president visits Sydney ahead of the APEC summit next month.

In his letter, Mr Brown wrote that Britain had obligations to the Iraqi government and United Nations to remain in Iraq until the country's own military forces were ready.

"Decisions on UK force levels and posture in Iraq are dictated by conditions on the ground," Mr Brown wrote.

"It is wrong to say that the continuing presence of UK forces in Iraq will achieve little, or that they are severely restricted in what they can do.

"We, together with the rest of the international community, have undertaken to support the country's political and economic development through the UN-led International Compact for Iraq.

"These are commitments it is not in our interests simply to abandon."

Brown, Howard and Bush all understand the need to make sure the Iraqi's are capable of maintaining their security before any reduction in troops or withdrawal and even time lines be set, as well as making sure their is no vacuum left in Iraq for Iran or al-Qaeda to step in to further endanger our combined interests.

These three strong leaders all have one thing in common, they all understand the necessity of finishing what we have started in Iraq, seeing to it that Iraq security forces are trained and capable of protecting themselves after the coalition forces leave and are determined to not provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda or allow Iran to step in and take over by leaving a vacuum.

I thank Gordon Brown, John Howard and George Bush for not bowing to "opinion" that does not take conditions on the ground into account but is instead screamed loudly because of political games.

Follow up with Fred Kagan's excellent analysis about the fools errand that Congress set upon the GAO.

[Update] More from todays joint press conference with President Bush and John Howard.



(NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]


Gold Star Mother:




.

al-Qaeda in Denmark

(Danish police looking for evidence after a raid resulted in the arrests of eight suspected terrorists.)
Eleven raids carried out in the greater Copenhagen area, leading to eight arrests is being credited with preventing a terrorist bombing linked to al-Qaeda.

The Director General of the PET (Police Intelligence Service), the Danish Police, these men arrested are quoted as being "militant Islamists with direct connections to international groups such as al-Qaida." The suspects are said to be between 19-29 yrs of age.

Buildings in the city's southern suburb of Ishoej and its Noerrebro district - both with large immigrant populations - were among those cordoned off by police.

The suspects had been under surveillance for some time and Danish investigators had liaised with "several foreign co-operation partners" before making the arrests, police said.

Later on Tuesday, two of the suspects, both 21, were remanded in custody for 27 days, with the first 13 days to be spent in solitary confinement.

Captain's Quarters asks and answers the question of why Denmark:

Why Denmark? The Danes belong to the Coalition fighting in Iraq, but that's probably a secondary issue. The Prophet cartoons -- which depicted Mohammed in a critical fashion -- were first published by Danish newspapers, and the Muslim world went nuts over the images. Hundreds of thousands protested, several people were murdered, and the radicals swore revenge. Some of them took it seriously.

From London to Denmark, al-Qaeda groups are having their plots foiled by good intelligence and cooperation between countries in sharing that intelligence. These plots are first being prevented then made public, which is embarrassing to al-Qaeda and it shows their desperation in their lack of planning, their lack of discretion and shows that they are not as organized as they once were.

We must stay on the offensive with any group linked to al-Qaeda or any group that pledges their allegiance to al-Qaeda's ideological goals.

Others discussing this: (Via memeorandum)
Neptunus Lex, Comments From Left Field, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, The American Pundit, The Van Der Galiën Gazette and JammieWearingFool







.

al-Qaeda in Denmark

(Danish police looking for evidence after a raid resulted in the arrests of eight suspected terrorists.)
Eleven raids carried out in the greater Copenhagen area, leading to eight arrests is being credited with preventing a terrorist bombing linked to al-Qaeda.

The Director General of the PET (Police Intelligence Service), the Danish Police, these men arrested are quoted as being "militant Islamists with direct connections to international groups such as al-Qaida." The suspects are said to be between 19-29 yrs of age.

Buildings in the city's southern suburb of Ishoej and its Noerrebro district - both with large immigrant populations - were among those cordoned off by police.

The suspects had been under surveillance for some time and Danish investigators had liaised with "several foreign co-operation partners" before making the arrests, police said.

Later on Tuesday, two of the suspects, both 21, were remanded in custody for 27 days, with the first 13 days to be spent in solitary confinement.

Captain's Quarters asks and answers the question of why Denmark:

Why Denmark? The Danes belong to the Coalition fighting in Iraq, but that's probably a secondary issue. The Prophet cartoons -- which depicted Mohammed in a critical fashion -- were first published by Danish newspapers, and the Muslim world went nuts over the images. Hundreds of thousands protested, several people were murdered, and the radicals swore revenge. Some of them took it seriously.

From London to Denmark, al-Qaeda groups are having their plots foiled by good intelligence and cooperation between countries in sharing that intelligence. These plots are first being prevented then made public, which is embarrassing to al-Qaeda and it shows their desperation in their lack of planning, their lack of discretion and shows that they are not as organized as they once were.

We must stay on the offensive with any group linked to al-Qaeda or any group that pledges their allegiance to al-Qaeda's ideological goals.

Others discussing this: (Via memeorandum)
Neptunus Lex, Comments From Left Field, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, The American Pundit, The Van Der Galiën Gazette and JammieWearingFool







.

Iran Claims Its Uranium Goal Has Been Reached

If this is true, then they are closer to a nuclear bomb than the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)thought they were as they said last week.

According to the LA Times, Iran is claiming they have reached the 3,000 running centrifuges for uranium enrichment, which would put them one year away from having enough nuclear material for a nuclear bomb.

TEHRAN -- Iran claimed today that it had reached its goal of running 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, a much higher number than recently estimated by the United Nations' atomic agency. If true, the accomplishment might allow Iran to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb within a year, military experts have calculated.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by state television as saying that despite economic sanctions by the United Nations, his country had "taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines."

It could not be independently verified whether Iran, which the West has often accused of exaggerating its nuclear capabilities for domestic propaganda, had reached it long-sought-after objective. Centrifuges spin at high rates of speed to enrich uranium and are critical to generating electricity or building a nuclear bomb.

A report released last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Tehran had nowhere near 3,000 centrifuges operating. It found that the country's plant at Natanz was running 1,968 centrifuges, a 50% increase over the number it had on line in April. However, the report says Iran has only enriched uranium to 3.7%, well below the 90% needed for weapons-grade material.

The last two sets of UN sanctions have been little more than a slap on the wrist for Iran, due to Russia and China watering those sanctions down to a point where they have obviously been completely ineffective.

I asked the other day if there was going to be an attack on Iran and many pundits and bloggers from both sides of the aisle are already claiming it is inevitable, is it?

So much talk from both sides of the aisle here in America as well as being commented on by France, via Sarkozy the new President of France, which yesterday issued a warning to Iran to comply with their international obligations or face an attack.

After Sarkozy's public statement which shocked many, we saw this morning that Iran, ratcheting up the stakes makes a statement claiming they are ready to step into Iraq.

Times Online reports on President Bush's comments concerning Iran's pursuit to an atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and vowing to confront Tehran before it is too late.

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Lets see what they are saying and why before we attempt to answer this.

According to the blog Informed Comment Global Affairs:

The legal argument to bypass the U.S. Congress has already been floated. As I noted in my DailyKos post:

The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."

Also according to a diarist over ay DailyKos, Maccabee, it is a done deal, according to a source they claim to have...this could be true or a complete fabrication, know one really knows.

"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

By the way, just as a side note, I am with Macsmind here that IF, very big IF, Maccabee is telling the truth, then this "source" has just betrayed the country in an act of treason by speaking to possible pending operations where our troops lives are at stake.

QandO points out information fromt he Maccabee post that shows it to probably be nothing more than a sack of....umm...lies.

[Update] Confederate Yankee, thoroughly debunks Maccabee with facts about things Maccabee has claimed that are impossible]

[Update #2] DailyKos has removed the Maccabee entry from their blog. I guess even Kos smelled the bull. (Thanks to Bob for pointing it out.)

We know without a doubt that plans are made up in preparation for most eventualities, so it is no big surprise that we have a plan of action should we decide to attack Iran and Times Online has brought us some of those plans.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

All of this is public news at this point and the lunatic from Iran (Ahmadinejad) already knows about it, so his statement about having completed the 3,000 running centrifuge mark is a simple "screw you" to the international community.

Members from the left have their panties in a bunch as Michael van der Galiën so puts it:

The liberal part of the blogosphere has its panties up in a bunch, because more and more people report that the US is preparing for war (against Iran).

Maccabee writes at Daily Kos that (s)he had a conversation with a friend - a friend who “is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz.” According to Maccabee (I have no idea how serious we should take this person) this friend told him (her) that the US is most definitely going to “hit Iran, bigtime” soon. Barnett R. Rubin - who I do trust - adds that those who can know basically told him the same thing. According to Barnett, the White House planned a major PR offensive right after Labor Day, after which the US will act.

Now, I understand that this is fascinating for political analysts (to think about), but once again it seems to me that all these people are doing right now is ringing the alarm bells, saying ’stop the war’ without offering a valid alternative. Once again it seems that they are more busy opposing Bush than thinking about possible solutions for the problem with Iran.

He is right, instead of looking at the problem and trying to come up with solutions, members of the far left are too busy pissing and moaning about Bush instead of the more serious discussion of how to stop Iran without bombing the hell out of them.

Bush doesn't need any permission for Congress to act, he has 90 days AFTER taking action to get approval from them and by then, according to the plans shown above, it would be a moot point.

So, my questions from above still stand:

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Being that we cannot disprove Ahmadinejad claims, we must go with the assumption that he is telling the truth, anything else would be suicidal.

That gives us a year or less to either force him to cease and stop his nuclear activities, which China and Russia will not agree to anything strong enough to do so, or someone attacks them as Sarkozy said would happen.

With the good news that we have come to an agreement with North Korea, we now have a bigger problem still facing us with Iran.

We do have a few months yet before action is imperative, but is it wise to wait until the last minute, taking the chance that they may be closer than what even they are saying?

On the other hand, what if they are full of hot air and really aren't close to 3,000 running centrifuges? Do we have a way, through the IAEA do disprove it?

Iran is playing a very dangerous game here, figuratively speaking, they are poking a tiger with a stick to see how riled up they can make it, but is that smart to do when the tiger is fully capable of destroying you because there is no cage between you and said tiger?







.

Iran Claims Its Uranium Goal Has Been Reached

If this is true, then they are closer to a nuclear bomb than the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)thought they were as they said last week.

According to the LA Times, Iran is claiming they have reached the 3,000 running centrifuges for uranium enrichment, which would put them one year away from having enough nuclear material for a nuclear bomb.

TEHRAN -- Iran claimed today that it had reached its goal of running 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, a much higher number than recently estimated by the United Nations' atomic agency. If true, the accomplishment might allow Iran to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb within a year, military experts have calculated.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by state television as saying that despite economic sanctions by the United Nations, his country had "taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines."

It could not be independently verified whether Iran, which the West has often accused of exaggerating its nuclear capabilities for domestic propaganda, had reached it long-sought-after objective. Centrifuges spin at high rates of speed to enrich uranium and are critical to generating electricity or building a nuclear bomb.

A report released last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Tehran had nowhere near 3,000 centrifuges operating. It found that the country's plant at Natanz was running 1,968 centrifuges, a 50% increase over the number it had on line in April. However, the report says Iran has only enriched uranium to 3.7%, well below the 90% needed for weapons-grade material.

The last two sets of UN sanctions have been little more than a slap on the wrist for Iran, due to Russia and China watering those sanctions down to a point where they have obviously been completely ineffective.

I asked the other day if there was going to be an attack on Iran and many pundits and bloggers from both sides of the aisle are already claiming it is inevitable, is it?

So much talk from both sides of the aisle here in America as well as being commented on by France, via Sarkozy the new President of France, which yesterday issued a warning to Iran to comply with their international obligations or face an attack.

After Sarkozy's public statement which shocked many, we saw this morning that Iran, ratcheting up the stakes makes a statement claiming they are ready to step into Iraq.

Times Online reports on President Bush's comments concerning Iran's pursuit to an atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and vowing to confront Tehran before it is too late.

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Lets see what they are saying and why before we attempt to answer this.

According to the blog Informed Comment Global Affairs:

The legal argument to bypass the U.S. Congress has already been floated. As I noted in my DailyKos post:

The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."

Also according to a diarist over ay DailyKos, Maccabee, it is a done deal, according to a source they claim to have...this could be true or a complete fabrication, know one really knows.

"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

By the way, just as a side note, I am with Macsmind here that IF, very big IF, Maccabee is telling the truth, then this "source" has just betrayed the country in an act of treason by speaking to possible pending operations where our troops lives are at stake.

QandO points out information fromt he Maccabee post that shows it to probably be nothing more than a sack of....umm...lies.

[Update] Confederate Yankee, thoroughly debunks Maccabee with facts about things Maccabee has claimed that are impossible]

[Update #2] DailyKos has removed the Maccabee entry from their blog. I guess even Kos smelled the bull. (Thanks to Bob for pointing it out.)

We know without a doubt that plans are made up in preparation for most eventualities, so it is no big surprise that we have a plan of action should we decide to attack Iran and Times Online has brought us some of those plans.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

All of this is public news at this point and the lunatic from Iran (Ahmadinejad) already knows about it, so his statement about having completed the 3,000 running centrifuge mark is a simple "screw you" to the international community.

Members from the left have their panties in a bunch as Michael van der Galiën so puts it:

The liberal part of the blogosphere has its panties up in a bunch, because more and more people report that the US is preparing for war (against Iran).

Maccabee writes at Daily Kos that (s)he had a conversation with a friend - a friend who “is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz.” According to Maccabee (I have no idea how serious we should take this person) this friend told him (her) that the US is most definitely going to “hit Iran, bigtime” soon. Barnett R. Rubin - who I do trust - adds that those who can know basically told him the same thing. According to Barnett, the White House planned a major PR offensive right after Labor Day, after which the US will act.

Now, I understand that this is fascinating for political analysts (to think about), but once again it seems to me that all these people are doing right now is ringing the alarm bells, saying ’stop the war’ without offering a valid alternative. Once again it seems that they are more busy opposing Bush than thinking about possible solutions for the problem with Iran.

He is right, instead of looking at the problem and trying to come up with solutions, members of the far left are too busy pissing and moaning about Bush instead of the more serious discussion of how to stop Iran without bombing the hell out of them.

Bush doesn't need any permission for Congress to act, he has 90 days AFTER taking action to get approval from them and by then, according to the plans shown above, it would be a moot point.

So, my questions from above still stand:

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Being that we cannot disprove Ahmadinejad claims, we must go with the assumption that he is telling the truth, anything else would be suicidal.

That gives us a year or less to either force him to cease and stop his nuclear activities, which China and Russia will not agree to anything strong enough to do so, or someone attacks them as Sarkozy said would happen.

With the good news that we have come to an agreement with North Korea, we now have a bigger problem still facing us with Iran.

We do have a few months yet before action is imperative, but is it wise to wait until the last minute, taking the chance that they may be closer than what even they are saying?

On the other hand, what if they are full of hot air and really aren't close to 3,000 running centrifuges? Do we have a way, through the IAEA do disprove it?

Iran is playing a very dangerous game here, figuratively speaking, they are poking a tiger with a stick to see how riled up they can make it, but is that smart to do when the tiger is fully capable of destroying you because there is no cage between you and said tiger?







.