Simple, 'cause this makes Bush look bad...........

Simple, 'cause this makes Bush look bad

Exactly. Whatever works at the moment.

If the news-ahem-reporter thinks it must be true or makes the right look like warmonging idiots, well then it MUST BE TRUE!

It is Bush and Rice that is sounding the alarm about Iran. I guess we should have looked a bit more when we choose to attack the paper tiger Iraq.

You should read Cobra II and The Battle for Peace. You will see how just how badly Bush, Cheney and Rummy screwed up in Iraq. Generals Zinni or Trainer have more knowledge about Iraq then a 1,000 people like Bush or Rummy.

It is Bush and Rice that are sounding the alarm about Iran. I guess we should have looked a bit more when we choose to attack the paper tiger Iraq.

You should read Cobra II and The Battle for Peace. You will see how just how badly Bush, Cheney and Rummy screwed up in Iraq. Generals Zinni or Trainer have more knowledge about Iraq then a 1,000 people like Bush or Rummy.

Since Iran is already sponsoring terrorists attacking American interests in Iraq, how would the situation change if we bombed Iran?

Seems to me that the Iranian government is already perpetrating as much terrorism against the U.S. as it can get away with.

If we started bombing them now, not only would it have no effect on their motivation (they're already highly motivated), but it would also quite likely reduce the amount of terrorism they can get away with. After all, a regime whose seat of government, industrial base, concentrations of willing jihadists, and financial assets have all been destroyed, slaughtered, or seized isn't a regime that can sponsor a lot of terrorism, no matter how motivated they might be.

Since Iran is already sponsoring terrorists attacking American interests in Iraq, how would the situation change if we bombed Iran?

There would be fewer terrorist to attack America.

The only difference between the Washington Pest and the Urinal Times is the venue.  Both are turds in the cess pool.

First, our problem in Iraq is not Iran but the sectarian violence between the factions in Iraq that we allowed to get out of hand when we deposed Saddam and failed to provide the power to keep these factions from developing into what we see today.

If we were to begin attacking Iran, we risk even more Moslem violence and given the way our military is stretched and the funding issues with a $600 Billion Deficit, we do not have the resources. After all Bush wants to make sure we have even less money by making his tax cuts permanent and creating an even bigger National Debt. Had we properly fought the terrorists and not become bogged down in the sectarian violence in Iraq, we would be far more able to deal with other threats.

nuke-em.. come to think of it nuke all retired cols. whos first name start with G>

It is Bush and Rice that are sounding the alarm about Iran. I guess we should have looked a bit more when we choose to attack the paper tiger Iraq. You should read Cobra II and The Battle for Peace. You will see how just how badly Bush, Cheney and Rummy screwed up in Iraq. Generals Zinni or Trainer have more knowledge about Iraq then a 1,000 people like Bush or Rummy.

Just more of your ignorant crap, huh?

The defense secretary still enjoys the public support of officers in uniform, and says the current top two commanders of U.S. forces in Iraq, General John Abizaid and General George Casey, are best placed to judge his leadership. Those generals, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace all say they back Rumsfeld.