Are There Grounds To Impeach Obama?

[The T]

So then the rule of law, the single most fundamental precept in the founding of our nation, that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men, laws all Americans are subject to is just "PC values"?

Americans who understand and appreciate what makes America America, the laws established in its Consitution, are concerned with protecting America from power hungry politicians who want to use the War on Terror as an excuse to break the law and strip people of their rights.

Obama has been terrible in his handling of terrorism, because he's still illegally asserting the right to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial based on suspicion alone, illegally asserting the right to assassinate an American citizen like al-Waliki based on his dictatorial decree alone and revoking the right to charge or trial and skipping right on to the death penalty, using predator drones to attack and kill hundreds of civilians in Pakistan, a country we have no authority to invade or attack and are not at war with, etc.

However, he has not been "soft" on terror and that's far from the problem. The attempted but failed underwear bombing was an attempted terrorist attack, the Fort Hood shooting was an attack against military personnel and therefore not terrorism, as was the shooting of the one soldier outside a recruiting station. You forgot though the successful terrorist attack by Joe Stack against the federal building in Austin. So there have been successfully pulled of terrorist attacks.

Their scale however is nothing compared to the attack that occurred under Bush, a little something called 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, and your creative accounting to blame Obama and absolve Bush of responsibility for terrorism, attempted terrorism, or violent shootings that occur during their presidency is the height of dishonest hackery.

Uh-HUH...And I noticed you FAILED to address the rest of my comments...

And NEXT time you quote me? INCLUDE the entire fucking quote?

I didn't fail anything. I didn't bother to address the rest of the drivel because it had no point and wasn't remotely honest. The idea that all Democratic presidents and only Democratic presidents invite terrorism considering the records of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II is as I said the height of dishonest hackery.

And for someone complaining about not responding to all comments, you sure pull something funny. In response to the following passage:

]Obama has been terrible in his handling of terrorism[/b], because he's still illegally asserting the right to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial based on suspicion alone, illegally asserting the right to assassinate an American citizen like al-Waliki based on his dictatorial decree alone and revoking the right to charge or trial and skipping right on to the death penalty, using predator drones to attack and kill hundreds of civilians in Pakistan, a country we have no authority to invade or attack and are not at war with, etc.

However, he has not been "soft" on terror and that's far from the problem. The attempted but failed underwear bombing was an attempted terrorist attack, the Fort Hood shooting was an attack against military personnel and therefore not terrorism, as was the shooting of the one soldier outside a recruiting station. You forgot though the successful terrorist attack by Joe Stack against the federal building in Austin. So there have been successfully pulled of terrorist attacks.

with "YOU may cease your cherry picking, and cease defending Obama." and "So spare me pal. *I* ain't buyin' yer defense of Obama at all."

That shows literally a reading comprehension issue.

I say Obama has been terrible when it comes to terrorism, spend a paragraph enumerating all the horrible policies he has enacted or continued, spend another paragraph noting the attacks that have occurred on American soil including one you forgot, and you call that a "defense of Obama."

I'm not cherry picking and I'm defending no one, that's clear from what I said. Obama's policies in relation to terrorism are terrible. So were Bush's before him, when the biggest attack ever happened despite ample warning. So was Clinton before him with the second biggest attack at OKC. So were Reagan and Bush I before them who created then pissed off Al Qaeda. I have no love for either party, so unlike you I'm able to recognize the significant flaws in each and don't pretend that all problems come from one aisle, particularly when it was the other guys who dropped the biggest ball in history on the subject (9/11).

And I'll quote whatever portions I feel are relevant and deserve a response, if I choose to respond. Deal with it.

*WE* have ONE thing in common...No love for either party. You've stated it...as I can see here. They've been the Anethma to what the Founders laid at our feet, and for US to defend or lose.

So I think you may lay OFF your list of politicians...especially those of Republican persuation...

*I Get it* and have for some time.

MY point of contention, and which *I* laid forth to you was to QUOTE my entire words or CEASE the crap you laid at MY feet with partials as you so demonstrated.

WE aren't that far apart.

Get it?

 

[antagon]

you are a partisan, T. that is the perspective from a third party observer. there's no necessity to spread culpability more deserving to one party evenly across both, unless, in fact, you bear a bias. the man makes claims with specific respect to actions and consequences of the parties quite fairly. your response is to plead with him to censor his references, particularly to republicans - and in the name of partisan independence.

assbackwards, pseudorepublican, fauxindependent: to put it in three words.

 

[Dr Grump]

you are a partisan, T. that is the perspective from a third party observer. there's no necessity to spread culpability more deserving to one party evenly across both, unless, in fact, you bear a bias. the man makes claims with specific respect to actions and consequences of the parties quite fairly. your response is to plead with him to censor his references, particularly to republicans - and in the name of partisan independence.

assbackwards, pseudorepublican, fauxindependent: to put it in three words.

Not to mention BOTH his sigs....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Zero grounds for impeachment.

The only modern impeachment was of Clinton (HOR imeachment, not final sentate trial impeachment) and for that they had to catch him lying under oath.

It was determined by the senate that the charge did not reach "high crimes and misdemeanors" and was not carried out.

You need a hard concrete law violation for impeachment. Anything else is totally political

(yes i know the Clinton Impeachment was political too)

Ya cause he did not LIE under oath? he was guilty. The democrats protected his ass. By the way, Impeachment does not have to mean removal from Office, that is the MOST they can do. They could have Impeached him and censored him. He was after all GUILTY.

 

[CMike]

Wrongo again.

Article 16 only applies to areas that are under American control, that have an american government. It must be under "territory under [United States]
jurisdiction."

None of the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used on the 3 arch terrorists that saved thousands of american lives were used in American jurisdiction.

Also, it involves ""the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment"

The waterboarding was also considered reasonable to protect American citizens and steps were taken to minimize suffereing and for it to be used on as few people as possible.

The measures also prevented two major terrorist attacks on America.

This is all in the Department of Justice memo.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

"Article 16"? You mean of the UN Convention Against Torture? It says no such thing about an American government must be in place.

First of all, much of the torture happened at Guantanamo Bay, which is under US jurisdiction, Bagram Air Base, which is under US jurisdiction, Abu Ghraib, which is under U.S. jurisdiction, and similar military bases, camps, and prisons around the world operating under U.S. jurisdiction.

We also brought detainees to be tortured in other countries by other countries where we did not have jurisdiction, but the Convention also forbids the transfer of prisoners to the custody of a state where it is reasonably believed they will be tortured, so even that is a crime.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

"Cruel, unusual, inhumane" treatment is not how torture is defined by the UN Convention Against Torture which Reagan signed, Congress ratified, and we became bound to. Rather it is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person to obtain information or confession, to punish, intimidate, or coerce, or based on discrimination of any kind.

Also, "it was considered reasonable" or whatever efficacy you think it may have had is moot and is addressed specifically by the Treaty and mentioned earlier by me.

Note:



They understood quite well that torture is always justified by the torturers as necessary to preserve safety and effective. That's why they made so clear that No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.. And as we signed and ratified the treaty and the Constitution makes all treaties the Supreme Law of the Land, it is illegal to engage in torture no matter what justification is offered for it.

Quentin you show a great contrast between American values and Obama and his minion values.

Americans are concerned about protecting Americans from Al Qaida.

Obama and his minions are concerned about protecting Al Qaida from America.

So I'm making the case that there are grounds to impeach Obama, detailing how he is a felon, and you still think of me as a "Obama minion"?

You are not very perceptive.

Wow......all that writing to demonstrate you are totally clueless as to what comprises a "High crime and misdemeaner"

But I forgive you....you are a conservative wingnut and cannot tell the difference

And more for the lack of perception skills and ignorant attempts at classification.

It's funny that as an independent very far to the left of Obama who has never supported Obama, protested his policies, campaigned, contributed to, and voted for his third party competitors, who understands the rule of law and uses only the law to demonstrate that Obama is guilty of violating the Constitution and committing a felony, I get called an Obama minion by Mike and a conservative wingnut by you.

What you've both proven is that you're so blindly partisan and see the world only through Republican/Democrat or rightwing/leftwing, conservative/liberal lenses that you're incapable of understanding any argument that doesn't fall into your simplistic worldview and simply label it whatever the opposite of what you think you are regardless of how silly, baseless, or in my case opposite (as a left-wing progressive vehemently opposed to Obama) it may be so that you can attempt to ignore it.

You're two sides of the same sad coin.

Read the Department of Justice memo and you will see that none of these criteria applied when the 3 arch terrorists were waterboarded. That's why I posted the link.

 

[CMike]

you are a partisan, T. that is the perspective from a third party observer. there's no necessity to spread culpability more deserving to one party evenly across both, unless, in fact, you bear a bias. the man makes claims with specific respect to actions and consequences of the parties quite fairly. your response is to plead with him to censor his references, particularly to republicans - and in the name of partisan independence.

assbackwards, pseudorepublican, fauxindependent: to put it in three words.

That is a rather idiotic statement, since every one here has a particular point of view.

 

[MaggieMae]

You have to look at it from this perspective....idiots like Dainty go to their loon websites, get their daily talking points and then descend upon the message boards to spew their hatred. Anyone who challenges or debates them are branded as right wing terrorists. News outlets that monitor these boards and pick up on this stuff then write stories in the MSM and claim what these left wing loons say is true thus securing those retards to their news outlets. Quite simple....I thought Dainty was Keith Olberman when I first started posing here...they sound like 2 little girls singing in unison.

But of course you folks on the right don't go to your own favorite cable channel and commentators, then to your own favorite blogsites which repeat the same stuff, which you in turn use to justify your own opinions. Gotcha.

 

[MaggieMae]

To engage in a typically wordy screed, there actually are sufficient grounds for impeachment, but they're about as far removed as can be from the idiotic OP's suggestion and don't line up at all with the agenda of most calling for his impeachment.

Obama is guilty of committing felonies though.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The oath of office he swore before he entered the Executive Office :

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Here's what the Consitution says about treaties the US signs into law:



Here's relevant text of the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by then-President Reagan on April 18, 1988 and ratified by Congress on October 21, 1994:



The United States is legally required by its Constitution, which Obama swore to faithfully execute, to be bound to all treaties it signs and ratifies as the "Supreme law of the land." The UN torture treaty legally compels all signatories to prosecute or extradite for prosecution any alleged torturers, including those complicit in torture.

From the Associated Press, April 11, 2008:

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved. . . .

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice

Cheney, among others, have even publicly admitted to personally approving of waterboarding and other techniques both the Convention and internal law emphatically define as torture.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators - washingtonpost.com

Waterboarding is torture.

Those in Bush's cabinet listed above, as well as scores of functionaries who carried out the torture, not should be prosecuted (regardless of whether you happen to think they should or not), they legally must be, otherwise everyone responsible for not prosecuting them are themselves violating the treaty and committing a felony. There is no room for consideration, political or otherwise, the letter of the law is forceful and unambiguous.

The logic chain of 1.) Obama must faithfully execute the Consitution; 2.) The Consitution declares that treaties we sign are the Supreme Law of the Land; 3.) A treaty we signed and ratified (and helped write) uses very absolutist, unequivocal language to define torture, which our treatment of certainly hundred and perhaps thousands of people in our custody or by our agents unquestionably meets; 4.) That treaty legally compels all signatories to prosecute those involved in torture and criminalizes inaction; 5.) Obama has explicitly instructed his DOJ to neither prosecute nor investigate a dozen top-level government officials that their own records and admission demonstrate were involved in torture and instead pushes his "Don't look back (at commissions of homicide), look forward (to ingore them)" rhetoric; 5.) That being a serious and categorical direct violation of the law and the Consitution makes him and Eric Holder, at the least, guilty of high crimes; 6.) High crimes committed by the President are valid and sufficient grounds for impeachment, is neither hard to follow nor particularly refutable.

Regardless of how one personally feels about the issue or divisiveness or whatever else, the fact remains that not only was torture systematically instituted by the top echelon of Bush era Cabinet members and legal functionaries and committed by scores of their underlings and is a serious criminal offense in the US, but that failing to prosecute those who committed it is in and of itself a serious criminal offense. The kind of high crime that justifies impeachment.

That said, these serious crimes are not much different than the kind of crimes that the last several presidents have been guilty of and we don't impeach our presidents for real crimes or ignoring the rule of law, only for engaging in scandalous behavior. Also, the only major political support for impeachment comes from the ignorant yahoos who want it on the grounds of "Communism" or "Fascism" or "Muslimism" or something rather than any legal argument, so not only will it certainly not happen but the fact that Obama is committing a crime will never make it into mainstream political discourse.

The vast, vast majority of people who'd support such a thing have no idea what the fuck they're talking about and want it for all the wrong reasons, seeing it through the prism of political benefit rather than the actual letter of the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't grounds that have merit.

Holy crap. So Obama should be impeached because he fails to prosecute those under the previous presidency who permitted and performed torture? A bit of a stretch, I think. Good luck with that one!

Even assuming there was any validity to that logic (which there isn't), the ones seeking impeachment on those grounds would first have to prove that said "torture" actually took place, and evidence couldn't be just heresay. Unfortunately, videotapes that once existed were mysteriously lost or erased.

 

[MaggieMae]

Quentin you show a great contrast between American values and Obama and his minion values.

Americans are concerned about protecting Americans from Al Qaida.

Obama and his minions are concerned about protecting Al Qaida from America.

But AmwayMike....

If that were true how do you explain all the attacks America has made against AlQaida since Obama took office.

Makes you look kind of foolish doesn't it?

More than a dozen al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan have been killed in the past year, and the two top AQ guys in Iraq just a couple of days ago. I'd say that's progress, and most assuredly no indication that Obama is "protecting" al-Qaeda. Where do these guys get this bullshit from? The slobbering asshole on the next barstool?

 

[MaggieMae]

Quentin you show a great contrast between American values and Obama and his minion values.

Americans are concerned about protecting Americans from Al Qaida.

Obama and his minions are concerned about protecting Al Qaida from America.

And protecting their PC Values at the expense of their fellow citizens.

Obama is doing the same shit Carter and Clinton did at OUR expense while the world Laughs...even our enemies...

Even Amindinajad said
"the 'amateur' who needs to dry off his sweat"

Yet Obama ignores it...And what attacks have we suffered under Obama, Carter...-AND- Clinton...?

*They* Still don't get it.

Nice that you find the words of someone like Achmedinejad so comforting.

 

[CMike]

The recruiting station

Fort Hood

The Undies Bomber

All linked to Al Qaida.

And I don't find them funny at all.

Seriously AmwayMike........First two were not linked to your boogeyman AlQaida

The undie bomber blew up his crotch.......

Is that what you compare 3000 Americans killed by George Bush's ineptness???

They must only show CNN down in those sewers. It's kind of fitting.

Fort Hood

Fort Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists, Officials Say - ABC News

Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda
Army Major in Fort Hood Massacre Used 'Electronic Means' to Connect with Terrorists

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasanwas attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
Army knew suspected Fort Hood gunman had contact with al Qaeda recruiter.According to the officials, the Armywas informed of Hasan's contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response.

Recruiting Station

Man charged in Arkansas shooting claims Yemen Al Qaeda ties - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

Man charged in Arkansas shooting claims Yemen Al Qaeda ties
A Memphis man accused of shooting two soldiers outside a military recruiting station in Arkansas last June has written the judge that he is affiliated with Al Qaeda in Yemen, the New York Times reports:

In a letter to the judge presiding over his case

Undies bomber

Obviously we all know that he had Al Qaida ties. The attack only failed because of a mechanical issue with the bomb. If that didn't occur, a northwest plane would have been blown out of the sky in Detroit, on Christmas Day.

All these attacks occurred as a direct result of Barak Hussein, and him making it clear that he cares more about protecting Al Qaida rights than protecting Americans from Al Qaida.

 

[antagon]

you are a partisan, T. that is the perspective from a third party observer. there's no necessity to spread culpability more deserving to one party evenly across both, unless, in fact, you bear a bias. the man makes claims with specific respect to actions and consequences of the parties quite fairly. your response is to plead with him to censor his references, particularly to republicans - and in the name of partisan independence.

assbackwards, pseudorepublican, fauxindependent: to put it in three words.

That is a rather idiotic statement, since every one here has a particular point of view.

no, mike, claiming to be an independent, then diving in front of bullets aimed at a particular party, in the same post, is idiotic. pointing out that perspectives which hold one party blatantly ahead of another aren't independent (that is non-partisan) is not an act of genius, but is hardly idiotic.

 

[MaggieMae]

How do you explain the 3 Al Qaida attacks in Obama's first year in America, when in the previous 7 years there were none?

I guess you don't get current information in those sewers, huh?

And you see that Obama FAILS on epic proportions when people rise up in regimes that are oppressive...his response when young folks/Students rose up in Iran against Ahmainajhihad regarding the "ELECTION" there in 2009?

Obama was "Silent". Biden and The Hildebeast stated "“we’re going to withhold comment"...

Of course? WHY stir the proverbial pot to real Liberty for these people?

READ: The Iranian election: Barack Obama's cowardly silence

It's a good piece. And it telegraphs something more sinister from our own Government and those in power now...

I shudder to contemplate what *WE* must endure as a nation until the elections of 2010.

So we should attack Iran? Start WWIII in the region where Israel is basically our only true ally? We don't even know where all of Iran's nuclear sites are. You don't think they would retaliate against Israel AND the United States? Are you looking forward to dying?

Iran has the upper hand. It doesn't even need to deploy its Revolutionary Guard against a ground invasion. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which every oil tanker from all other countries come and go. All Iran needs to do is close off that small strait to traffic, and the entire world would suffer the immediate repercussions of a global shortage of oil (and energy).

The smart thinkers in determining policy regarding Iran know a helluva lot more about how to approach the problem of Iran than you do, or any of those neocon warmongers who formed the Project for a New American Century and thought walking all over the Middle East in order to control their resources would be a walk in the park.

 

[MaggieMae]

And protecting their PC Values at the expense of their fellow citizens.

So then the rule of law, the single most fundamental precept in the founding of our nation, that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men, laws all Americans are subject to is just "PC values"?

Americans who understand and appreciate what makes America America, the laws established in its Consitution, are concerned with protecting America from power hungry politicians who want to use the War on Terror as an excuse to break the law and strip people of their rights.

Obama has been terrible in his handling of terrorism, because he's still illegally asserting the right to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial based on suspicion alone, illegally asserting the right to assassinate an American citizen like al-Waliki based on his dictatorial decree alone and revoking the right to charge or trial and skipping right on to the death penalty, using predator drones to attack and kill hundreds of civilians in Pakistan, a country we have no authority to invade or attack and are not at war with, etc.

However, he has not been "soft" on terror and that's far from the problem. The attempted but failed underwear bombing was an attempted terrorist attack, the Fort Hood shooting was an attack against military personnel and therefore not terrorism, as was the shooting of the one soldier outside a recruiting station. You forgot though the successful terrorist attack by Joe Stack against the federal building in Austin. So there have been successfully pulled of terrorist attacks.

Their scale however is nothing compared to the attack that occurred under Bush, a little something called 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, and your creative accounting to blame Obama and absolve Bush of responsibility for terrorism, attempted terrorism, or violent shootings that occur during their presidency is the height of dishonest hackery.

Uh-HUH...And I noticed you FAILED to address the rest of my comments...

Obama is doing the same shit Carter and Clinton did at OUR expense while the world Laughs...even our enemies...

Even Amindinajad said
"the 'amateur' who needs to dry off his sweat"

Yet Obama ignores it...And what attacks have we suffered under Obama, Carter...-AND- Clinton...?

*They* Still don't get it.

YOU may cease your cherry picking, and cease defending Obama. And of course I emboldened 'BUSH" in your statement to me...in which Bush had to DEAL with Clinton's inactions regarding attacks of terrorism...Re: 9/11.

So spare me pal. *I* ain't buyin' yer defense of Obama at all. And NEXT time you quote me? INCLUDE the entire fucking quote?

Dumbass.

 

[MaggieMae]

you are a partisan, T. that is the perspective from a third party observer. there's no necessity to spread culpability more deserving to one party evenly across both, unless, in fact, you bear a bias. the man makes claims with specific respect to actions and consequences of the parties quite fairly. your response is to plead with him to censor his references, particularly to republicans - and in the name of partisan independence.

assbackwards, pseudorepublican, fauxindependent: to put it in three words.

Not to mention BOTH his sigs....

At least T's have gotten old and nobody even looks at 'em anymore. Quentin's however are as long as the tomes he posts. Hey! Whatever happened to the six-line maximum for signatures? Mods?

 

[CMike]

How do you explain the 3 Al Qaida attacks in Obama's first year in America, when in the previous 7 years there were none?

I guess you don't get current information in those sewers, huh?

And you see that Obama FAILS on epic proportions when people rise up in regimes that are oppressive...his response when young folks/Students rose up in Iran against Ahmainajhihad regarding the "ELECTION" there in 2009?

Obama was "Silent". Biden and The Hildebeast stated "“we’re going to withhold comment"...

Of course? WHY stir the proverbial pot to real Liberty for these people?

READ: The Iranian election: Barack Obama's cowardly silence

It's a good piece. And it telegraphs something more sinister from our own Government and those in power now...

I shudder to contemplate what *WE* must endure as a nation until the elections of 2010.

So we should attack Iran? Start WWIII in the region where Israel is basically our only true ally? We don't even know where all of Iran's nuclear sites are. You don't think they would retaliate against Israel AND the United States? Are you looking forward to dying?

Iran has the upper hand. It doesn't even need to deploy its Revolutionary Guard against a ground invasion. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which every oil tanker from all other countries come and go. All Iran needs to do is close off that small strait to traffic, and the entire world would suffer the immediate repercussions of a global shortage of oil (and energy).

The smart thinkers in determining policy regarding Iran know a helluva lot more about how to approach the problem of Iran than you do, or any of those neocon warmongers who formed the Project for a New American Century and thought walking all over the Middle East in order to control their resources would be a walk in the park.

What happens after Iran has operational nuclear weapons and the method to deliver them?

 

[antagon]

And you see that Obama FAILS on epic proportions when people rise up in regimes that are oppressive...his response when young folks/Students rose up in Iran against Ahmainajhihad regarding the "ELECTION" there in 2009?

Obama was "Silent". Biden and The Hildebeast stated "“we’re going to withhold comment"...

Of course? WHY stir the proverbial pot to real Liberty for these people?

READ: The Iranian election: Barack Obama's cowardly silence

It's a good piece. And it telegraphs something more sinister from our own Government and those in power now...

I shudder to contemplate what *WE* must endure as a nation until the elections of 2010.

So we should attack Iran? Start WWIII in the region where Israel is basically our only true ally? We don't even know where all of Iran's nuclear sites are. You don't think they would retaliate against Israel AND the United States? Are you looking forward to dying?

Iran has the upper hand. It doesn't even need to deploy its Revolutionary Guard against a ground invasion. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which every oil tanker from all other countries come and go. All Iran needs to do is close off that small strait to traffic, and the entire world would suffer the immediate repercussions of a global shortage of oil (and energy).

The smart thinkers in determining policy regarding Iran know a helluva lot more about how to approach the problem of Iran than you do, or any of those neocon warmongers who formed the Project for a New American Century and thought walking all over the Middle East in order to control their resources would be a walk in the park.

What happens after Iran has operational nuclear weapons and the method to deliver them?

they'll join the club.