Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Programs Being Disrupted

Obama Not To Blame

As Rick Rice reported here on Saturday, Iran has had another in their ongoing string of unfortunate incidents involving their Revolutionary Guards Corps and things that go boom.  I mentioned to him shortly after his article went up here and on Google + that there were two separate blast sites, that one of the blasts had taken out the head of Iran’s long range missile program, and that Michael Ledeen had been tipped to expect a “big bang” out of Iran prior to the events.

The plot thickens…

Iran missile development commander killed in explosion

An explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base in Iran killed a senior commander in charge of the country’s missile development programme, the authorities have said, prompting speculation Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service was involved.

By , Middle East Correspondent
The Telegraph (UK)

Brigadier General Hassan Moghaddam was said to be “responsible for industrial research aimed at ensuring self-sufficiency of the Revolutionary Guards’ armaments”, a coded way of confirming reports that he was responsible for its missile inventory.

The authorities claimed the explosion was caused by an accident which happened as ammunition was being moved, but the high-profile status of its main victim will add to speculation that it was an act of sabotage aimed at the country’s nuclear weapons programme.

One US-based commentator known to have good sources in Israel’s military community said he had been told it was carried out by Mossad, co-operating with an exile group, the People’s Mojaheddin of Iran (MEK).

He drew comparisons with an explosion at a base housing Shahab-3 long-range missiles just over a year ago, which killed 18 people and which was also put down by the authorities to a fire in an ammunition depot.

I’m not convinced that MEK needed or received any assistance from the Mossad.  They’ve been blowing shit up for some time now with great success (and to the mad mullah’s fury and chagrin).  Then again, most western observers are probably unaware that Iran is rather a hodge podge of ethnicities and faiths, not all of whom have gone along cheerfully with the Islamic Revolution.

The other bit of bad news (shucks) for the mad mullahs probably does have something to do with Mossad.

It seems that DUQU, the son of STUXNET, is flourishing in Iran and has started to deliver some kind of payload which is having further deleterious effects on the Nuclear Program that our intelligence services promised us did not exist…

Iran admits to facing attack by new ‘Duqu’ computer virus

Head of Iranian civil defense says organizations, corporations supplied with software to help them defend themselves from new virus; earlier this year Tehran admitted the Stuxnet computer worm targeted its nuclear program.

By Yossi Melman

For the first time, Iran admitted on Sunday that it had been on the receiving end of a new cyber attack by the Duqu computer virus that allegedly targeted computers of firms in the Islamic Republic.

Speaking with the official IRNA news agency, head of Iranian civil defense Brigadier General Gholamreza Jalali said that Tehran had developed a software to thwart attacks by the Duqu virus, adding that the “software to control the [Duqu] virus has been developed and made available to organizations and corporations” in Iran.

Yeah…  I’m sure they have the virus and it’s payload safely sequestered.

Despite that fact that Iran has been waging war against the United States for more than 30 years, I’m quite certain that the Obama Administration has had nothing to do with this series of unfortunate events in the Islamic Republic.

Dread naught, for the [P]resident most assuredly has, and will do, naught.


“He picked the wrong guy to pee off”
The Least Suprising News of the Day
  • Anonymous

    Well, ya got your ‘sternly worded memo’ and then ya got the followup to the followup “STERNLY worded memo.”

    I’m sure the mullahs are shaking in their slippers.

  • Anonymous

    When gas is rationed and $25 a gallon and President Romney reinstates the draft for your granddaughters to fight on the Iraq/Iran border (his 5 sons will be “too old”), you won’t be too hot on this war.

    The recently retired head of the Mossad Meir Dagan said attacking Iran was “the stupidest idea” he ever heard.

    But “liar” Netanyahoo and the nutball cult terrorist group MEK want to drag the USA into an even bigger war than Iraq and Afghanistan have been.  Barbara Tuchman said it – “The March of Folly.”

    • jim_m

      Another dumb ass lefty saying how we will reinstate the draft. 

      Do you ever bother to notice that the only people who call for that are from the left and they do so for the explicit purpose of harming the effectiveness of our military?   When the Iraq war started in 2002 the military didn’t have a problem with filling its quota of enlistments and it exceeded its target for people re-upping. 

      Thanks for your anti-semitic contribution to the discussion.  Perhaps you should look back at the discussion over the last decade which tended along the lines of “no one will lift a finger to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but they all expect Israel to do something about it and while they will publicly condemn Israel for doing anything, they will all breathe a sigh of relief when they do.”

      • Anonymous

        Hey, you said Netanyahoo was “the leader of the Jews,” which is one of the dumber things ever said on Wizbang.

        So I guess you can pull out the old “anti-semitic” card for any criticism of Netanyahoo.

        By the way the Iraq war started in 2003.  Iran is much bigger, too.

        • jim_m

          Um, he is if you consider the context was a discussion about Israel.  I explained my remark at the time.

          As I recall Iraq fought Iran to a stand still.  I doubt that the military would have that much more difficulty taking Iran down if required.  Of course having a president like obama, who is bent on seeing America lose would be a major obstacle to winning any conflict.

        • jim_m

          I’ll note that you’ve gone silent on the draft thing.  Maybe you looked it up and saw that despite the dems claiming that Bush had a secret plan to reinstate the draft it was Charlie Rangel who actually advanced the legislation. 

          Another leftist projection.

          • Just another burned out baby-boomer looking to recreate the “glory days” drugs, mud, and defeat.

          • herddog505

            And just think: if they recreate those glory days, protesting against the results will launch the political career of a future John Kerry!


          • Anonymous

            Recruitment suffered during the Iraq years, with the lowering of standards.

            A large general conflict on several fronts, including an invasion of Iran, protection of the Gulf oil fields or a re-invasion of Iraq such as bombing might bring about, would require much larger force levels than even Iran/Afghanistan in 2009.    If you think American youth will be flocking to the recruiters for the War with Iran, you’re deluded.   Kids are smarter than that.  Hence, a draft.

          • Show proof.

          • Anonymous

            Proof of what?  A future hypothetical?

          • jim_m

            I think he’s asking for something to back up your bogus allegation that the armed forces couldn’t recruit during the Iraq war.  I recall it being quite the opposite.

            I worked with a Marine Corps Major who wanted to reenlist after 9/11.  The Corps didn’t have an opening for him.  He had to shop around to find an opportunity and ultimately took a demotion to Staff Sargent in the NC National Guard. It took a couple of years to secure a repromotion to Major.  That doesn’t sound like the services were having difficulty filling their ranks.

          • herddog505

            That matches my recollection, too: the services had no trouble with retention and force levels generally, which was a source of never-ending puzzlement to the lefties:

            “Why do all these people keep staying in the military???  Don’t they know that they are just pawns in Halliburton’s illegal war for oil???  Don’t they realize that Chimpy McBushhitler cackled with glee every time he gets one of them killed???”

            To the extent that they were able to even recognize that people were enlisting and reenlisting at adequate rates, they rationalized it by claiming that people were driven to enlist – MERCENARIES! – by economic hardship.  Yessir, the “worst economy since the Great Depression” with those horrible, terrible, unprecedented 6% unemployment rates DROVE poor people to sign up to be cannon fodder.


          • Anonymous

            Without seeing the guy’s record, that’s indicative of nothing.  How old was he?  How long was he out?  What were his fitness reports/OERs like?   Did he have letters of reprimand, etc?  Was his MOS in demand? 

            As for lowered standards, see:

            They doubled the number allowed in the lowest mental category.


            they issued more waivers for felons.


            the proportion of high school grads went down.

            Google is your friend.

          • Your allegation:

            Recruitment suffered during the Iraq years, with the lowering of standards.

            Your “proof” is four to six years old, and precedes the POR Recession.

          • Anonymous

            Well, four to six years ago are when the effect of Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s incompetent war leadership were most felt.  That was when potential recruits realized that a three or four year Army enlistment meant three trips to the war – first tour right after training, second with “stop loss,” third on an IRR individual recall to active duty. Hence, they had to waive standards to get people to sign up for that trap.

            So as long as the USA’s in a deep recession, recruiting can be maintained at current quality and force levels? 

            Now, that’s a great plan for war with Iran.

            After a certain point, needing a job is not going to get you to enlist for war.

          • donwalk

            Recruitment suffered?
            Then who in the hell fought in the war?
            That would be the war that President Bush won and then signed that treaty calling for the removal of all those troops who didn’t volunteer in the first place, as you would like everyone to believe.
            The American youth would believe that they are better off in the military, than what they are under this regime’s economic plan, or lack of an economic plan.
            Kids are smart enough to avoid the recruiters, but not smart enough to avoid the draft? You must be referring to kids with Liberal, Democrat leanings of course! 

          • Anonymous

            “The war that President Bush won.”   WTF did he or the American people win?

          • herddog505

            The same thing we won in Germany, Italy and Japan after 1945.  For that matter, the same thing that the yankees won down here after 1865.

            Saddam is gone.  His WMD programs are gone.  His rape rooms are gone.  His pogroms against Kurds, marsh Arabs, and anybody else he didn’t like are gone.  His threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and even Iran is gone.  Iraq is a democracy.  We hope that this will last.  I’m pretty satisfied with that.

          • Anonymous

            Sure, I’ll concede the Iraqis might have won a chance to have a better country.  Americans got nothing except one or two trillion in debt and the grief of families.

            As for pogroms, they’ve had a few in Iraq since 2003 – against Sunni, Shia, Christians, depending on who was doing the killing.

            This guy who was in Iraq says it best:


          • Now it’s talking to itself again.

            No end to the nasty habits.

    • Chico –

      WTF makes you think we’re hot for THIS one?

      Is making sure a building is up to spec re sprinklers and extinguishers planning and hoping for a fire?  Or trying to lower the odds to avoid a catastrophe?

      I’ve got to admit, I really don’t understand your thinking here, and I’ve tried.  You’ve got Iran, who is looking to get nuclear weapons (except, of course, they say they aren’t) and a leadership that doesn’t always have both oars in the water.  Nuclear weapons + unstable leadership (with just a light touch of Radical Islam flavored Jew hatred) = A real potential for city loss.

      Yes, you believe the leadership wouldn’t do something stupid like that.  I’d like to believe that also.  But would you willing to bet a city on Iran’s leadership (and nuclear command and control procedures) being solid enough to be trusted with nukes long-term?  Or even the more radical factions caring whether they themselves survive if they can take out an enemy?

      I wouldn’t take that bet, myself.

      Pakistan and India both got nukes at the same time – and they grew up fast to a point where they could coexist fairly well.  That happens when you can (a) take out an enemy’s city and (b) they can take out yours.  Artillery duels on a border are one thing – a city is something else.

      If Pakistan can develop a working atomic bomb – so can Iran.

      What’s the right course of action?  Hell if I know.  But cult-of-personality dictatorships don’t much care whether the peons get inconvenienced by sanctions, so more won’t do much good, I think. 

      The clock is ticking on Iran at this point.  I don’t want war.  Nobody in the ME does – but I think the trust you’ve apparently got in Iran to be stable is badly misplaced, and by all accounts very few in the ME trust Iran.  

      And you know, I could sure as hell live with it if I’m wrong.

      • jim_m

        Hey, Iran as incredibly stable. I mean, sure their leader is a nutball that believes he can bring about the apocalypse and he has threatened several times to obliterate Israel, but what does that have to do with anything?

        • herddog505

          No, no, NO!  Only Michele Bachmann believes in using nukes to bring about the apocalypse!  The Iranian leaders are level-headed, peaceful, rational, secular pragmatists who, even if you want to believe the Zionist propaganda about them trying to build nukes (to defend themselves agains the Zionists and oil-hungry warmongers in the US who overthrew their government and installed the Shah decades ago), would NEVER use a nuke, threaten to use a nuke, give a nuke to a terrorist group, etc.  That shot simply isn’t on the board!  As for those statements about them wanting to destroy the illegal Zionist occupation of Palestine, they are mere hyperbole and NOT to be taken literally.


          • jim_m

            How long have you written for the nyt editorial page?

          • herddog505

            How did you penetrate what I thought to be an ironclad incognito????

            Anyway, I started at The Newspaper of Record a few months after the day that I declared my admiration, respect and even love for the Chinese communist system government (so neat!  so efficient!) but before I state the self-evident truth that the immaculate creases in a certain politician’s trousers made him qualified – TOTALLY qualified, I say – to be President of the United States.  The epiphany about an alien invasion being the solution to our national economic woes came much later.

            Of course, I’ve ALWAYS known about the Zionists; indeed, what self-respecting member of the crack NYT staff DOESN’T???  I confess that I HAVE had to develop a more discerning ear, but after careful tutoring by my good friend and cognoscente Maureen I can confidently say that I can hear the unspoken “boy” in any speech by a Republican.

            Good times, man, good times…

            Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to finish my groundbreaking column – sure to be in contention for a Pulitzer – about how wonderful Barack Obama’s policies are and how anybody who doesn’t agree is a racist, nazi pooh-pooh head teabagger.

      • Anonymous

        A-bombs are 1940s technology. Bombing Iran won’t ensure they won’t get it. “Regime change” might (although the Shah wanted a bomb too), but bombing might work against regime change by unifying the country against Israel and the USA. Invading the country would be the only way to guarantee regime change, and that is an operation much bigger than Iraq.

        Iran may be looking for “break-out” capability, which is what Japan reportedly has, rather than a stockpile. The program itself, and the external threats against it, may also be serving the regime by boosting national pride, militarism and solidarity. Authoritarian regimes do that.

        There is as much chance that attacking Iran would be like Sarajevo 1914, leading to wider war, as anything else.

        • herddog505

          Commander_ChicoA-bombs are 1940s technology. Bombing Iran won’t ensure they won’t get it.

          Um, yes, it will.  We merely have to use enough bombs.

          Commander_ChicoIran may be looking for “break-out” capability, which is what Japan reportedly has, rather than a stockpile.

          Oh, OF COURSE.  Why, EVERY country spends billions to develop the capability to build a Bomb just in case it’s ever needed.  No reason to think that Iran is investing all this time and money to REALLY build a Bomb.  How silly!  They just want to see if they can do it to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.  Think of it as the national version of rebuilding a classic car or learning to play the piano: it’s just something to pass the time, to prove that “we can do it!”


          Japan has the “break-out” capability NOT because they set about developing it as such, but because they have a highly advanced industry that includes long experience with nuclear power and a scientific base for whom building a Bomb would be about as much trouble as putting together an erector set.  Ditto Canada, Germany, Sweden, Australia, and most other “first world” countries.  As you say, a Bomb is ’40s technology, and would be about as hard for them to build as it would be to build a jet engine, a ballistic missile, or a vacuum-tube computer.

          I suggest that it’s significant that they don’t do so: because they have neither the need nor the desire to have a nuclear stockpile.  Now, why might that be?  Could it be that they are so terrified of the United States that they are cowed into refraining?  Or could it be that they are peaceful members of “the international community” who don’t have the itch – often and publicly stated – to wipe out some neighboring country that has done nothing to them?

          Commander_ChicoThere is as much chance that attacking Iran would be like Sarajevo 1914, leading to wider war, as anything else.

          This is laughable.  Is Iran a member of some 21st century Triple Alliance?  Is Iran allied with some modern-day Austrian Empire that is allied with a modern-day Imperial Germany that is AND HAS BEEN FOR DECADES at swords points with the equivalent of France, Imperial Russia and Great Britain?  Are you suggesting that Russia or Red China would go to war over Iran?

          I suggest that, to the contrary, while the Russians and Red Chinese would hardly be pleased to see the mullahs toppled (they’ve been making quite a stack of cash selling them weapons and technology, and there’s the residual Cold War impulse to cause us trouble), it is no more in their interest than it is in our’s to see a nuclear-armed Iran.  Fallout doesn’t respect national borders.

          • Anonymous

            That fellow “leftist” Pat Buchanan nails it:


            Return of the War Party?

            Patrick Buchanan
            November 14, 2011

            Is a vote for the Republican Party in 2012 a vote for war?

            Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another
            unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as
            large and populous as Iraq?

            Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf
            and “prepare for war.” Newt is even more hawkish. America should
            continue “taking out” Iran’s nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating
            them — but military action will probably be needed.

            Newt is talking up uber-hawk John Bolton for secretary of state.. . . ..

            For the retired head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, calls attacking Iran “the
            stupidest thing I have ever heard of.” He means stupid for Israel.

            Why? Because an Israeli attack would be costly in planes and pilots,
            and only set back Iran’s nuclear program. And such a pre-emptive strike
            would unify Iranians behind the regime.

            Moreover, Israel would be inviting Tehran’s ally Hezbollah to rain
            down rockets on Israel, igniting another of the bloody Lebanon wars that
            Israel was desperate to end the last time.

            As for the United States, the only way we could eliminate Iran’s nuclear program would be days of air and missile strikes.

            Iran could retaliate by cutting off oil exports and mining the Strait
            of Hormuz, tripling the world price of oil, and hurling the European
            Union and United States into recession.

            Iran could also turn Hezbollah loose on Americans in Lebanon and urge
            Shias to attack U.S. troops, diplomats and civilians in Bahrain, Iraq
            and Afghanistan, and here in the United States.

            No one knows how this would end. A U.S.-Iran war could force us to
            march to Tehran to remove the Islamic regime and scour that huge country
            to ensure that it was shorn of weapons of mass destruction — for an
            Islamic regime that survived a U.S. war would be hellbent on acquiring
            the bomb to pay us back. Yet, we lack a large enough army to occupy

            And why should thousands more Americans have to die or come home to
            be fitted for metal limbs so Israel can remain sole proprietor of a
            nuclear weapon from Morocco to Afghanistan?

            And where is the hard evidence Iran is acquiring nukes?

            The U.S. intelligence community declared in December 2007, with “high
            confidence,” that Iran was no longer seeking nuclear weapons. It has
            never rescinded that declaration. . . . . 

            And there is no conclusive evidence in that media-hyped report last
            week from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is for
            certain building nuclear weapons. Indeed, that report was exposed as the
            work of incompetents within hours. . . . .

            Are we being lied and stampeded into yet another war by the same propagandists who gave us the yellow-cake-from-Niger forgeries?

            Bibi calls Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another Hitler and says we are all in 1939 again. But is this credible?

            True, Ahmadinejad hosted a Holocaust conference featuring David Duke
            and said Israel should be wiped off the map, but he does not control
            Iran’s military, has lost favor with the ayatollah, and has been
            threatened with impeachment. Ahmadinejad is a lame duck with less than
            two years left in his term. Is mighty Israel afraid of this man?

            Told that the IAEA said Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons,
            Ahmadinejad laughed: “The Iranian nation is wise. It won’t build two
            bombs against 20,000 (nuclear) bombs you (Americans) have.”

            Does he not have a point? How would an Iranian bomb secure Iran, when
            Israel’s nuclear arsenal would be put on a hair trigger, and Turkey,
            Saudi Arabia and Egypt would then rush to get their own bombs?

            In that South Carolina debate, Ron Paul, the one person there proven right on Iraq, was given less than 90 seconds to speak.

            Under the Constitution, said Paul, no president has the right to
            launch an unprovoked attack on Iran without congressional authorization.

            Before America goes to war with Iran, let Congress, whose members are
            forever expressing their love for the Constitution, follow it, and vote
            on war with Iran. And before we go to the polls in 2012, let’s find out
            if the GOP is becoming again the same old War Party that bankrupted the

          • herddog505

            Quoting Pat Buchanan on this subject doesn’t exactly strengthen your case.

            I DO agree, however, that the Congress ought to vote for any war.  However, Barry kind of put the final nail in the coffin of that quaint, archaic notion that (IIRC) is written down in some musty old document that doesn’t really apply to our modern world.

          • chicka’s turn to Pat Buchanan merely shows that the political continuum is spherical, and that those who tread far enough find themselves in the enemy camp.

            Hard to get much further out than chicka or Pat.

          • Anonymous

            If you don’t believe Buchanan, look at a map.  Note the size of Iran and the length of its borders with Iraq and Afghanistan.

            If Israel attacks Iran, then Tehran will move straight into Iraq, rendering the US oil bonuses and all the lives lost in two Persian Gulf wars meaningless, believes veteran Russian diplomat Evgeny Primakov.

            RT: So you do admit that it is possible that Israel may attack Iran? 

            EP: Yes. Unfortunately, I do. I really hope, though, that it never happens, because this may lead to very dangerous consequences. Some say that the USA is just waiting for Iraq to restore its oil production capacity and to start supplying oil to the world market, after which the USA will clear Israel to attack, but I would say this is not quite correct. If there is ever a strike on Iran, I think that Iran will do everything to gain control of the situation in Iraq.  

            And nobody knows how events in Iraq are going to develop after that. Right now, Iran has great authority and influence in the Shia community.


          • herddog505

            Wow.  The Russians, who are making lots of money off the mullahs, don’t think it’s a good idea for us to invade!  Say it ain’t so, Joe!

            “Veteran Russian diplomats” think it’s a bad idea.  I’ll bet “veteran” Red Chinese diplomats agree.  Ditto veteran Iranian diplomats.  Veteran Cuban diplomats.  Veteran North Korean diplomats.  Even veteran French diplomats.

            We heard all this gloom and doom back in ’02 – ’03: Iraq’s too big, our army’s too small, their army’s too big, street fighting in Baghdad, bogged down, inflame the entire Arab world, draw in the Russians, blah-blah-blah.  I also must say that I’m particularly amused (contemptuously amused) with the liberal handwringing over the price of oil.  Not only does this directly contradict their “war for oil” nonsense, high oil prices are EXPLICIT LIBERAL POLICY to fight “global warming”.  Hell, Gaia will thank Uncle Sam for invading Iran and driving the price of gas to $25 / gallon.

            ANY war is a risk to our troops who may fight it, to innocent Iranian civilian, to American civilians who may be killed in retaliatory terrorist attacks, etc.  But I consider an Iranian Bomb to be a much GREATER risk, one that we have a narrowing window of opportunity to avoid.

          • Anonymous

            Well, doesn’t it make sense for the Iranians to move into Iraq in an even more blatant way than they are now?  But of course when the facts disagree, attack the source.  Did you look at the map?   Is geography also biased?

            Apart from the “gloom and doom” I also remember the rosy predictions back in 02-03 “Iraqis will welcome us,” “the war and reconstruction will pay for itself”

          • herddog505

            Commander_Chico[D]oesn’t it make sense for the Iranians to move into Iraq in an even more blatant way than they are now?  But of course when the facts disagree, attack the source.  Did you look at the map?   Is geography also biased?

            Yes, I can see that Iran is a large country with a population roughly twice as large as Iraq’s.  To this I say: So what?  From my perspective, we do not need to invade and occupy the country to achieve our goal, which is (or SHOULD BE) stopping the mullahs getting a Bomb.  This should be achievable by a relative handful of missile strikes, B-2 sorties, and PERHAPS raids by special forces to make sure that sites have been thoroughly destroyed and perhaps sieze documents and other intel to help us plan follow-ups.  O’ course, we might also start supplying money, arms and (ahem) advisors to various groups in Iran who don’t like their present government and would rather have something else.  Think of it as supporting “Occupy Tehran”.

            And if the Iranians invade Iraq… um… why would they do that again?  Their country is under attack and they are going to invade somebody else?  And wouldn’t that merely unite the Iraqis against them?  And perhaps even bring in the Saudis, who apparently don’t like or trust Tehran any more than we do (oh noes! Sarajevo 1914!)?

            As for the “facts”, the only “facts” you have submitted are the opinions of Pat Buchanan and a Russian diplomat.

            By the way: thanks for admitting that Iran has been waging war against us.  Sounds like a causus bellum to me.

          • Anonymous

            Suppose, as some have said, the Iranians have hardened and dispersed their sites to make it impossible to destroy them with conventional weapons.  Some sites may be unknown, some may be in the center of Tehran.  Then what?  The only way to guarantee success would be to invade the country, or at least install a friendly government.  That requires more than a bombing campaign.

            This study by CSIS describes the difficulties (pdf):


          • We should pay attention to the opinions of the sick, twisted, demented, evil frack who wrote:

            Will you be popping the champagne when American forces die in Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Kuwait as a result of Iranian retaliation to your hallowed Israeli strike?


    • Of course you see no problem with Iranian nukes, just like Obama.  Sanctions, sternly worded communiques, diplomacy is your path, like Obama’s.  Meanwhile the mad mullahs laugh at you and attack America through proxies with virtual impunity, ignoring their own international agreements in pursuit of offensive nuclear weapons. 

      Fortunately, I don’t Israel will wait for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv to take action.  Too bad you and your leftist pals won’t get to pop that champagne, Chomsky.

      • Anonymous

        Will you be popping the champagne when American forces die in Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Kuwait as a result of Iranian retaliation to your hallowed Israeli strike?

        • Anyone who would write:

          Will you be popping the champagne when American forces die in
          Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Kuwait as a result of Iranian retaliation to
          your hallowed Israeli strike?

          is a sick, twisted, demented, evil frack.  Those who wold do so while claiming to be a veteran are disgraces to the uniforms they claim to have worn.

          • Anonymous

            I believe in putting America and Americans first, not like those who dance to Netanyahu’s tune and want to have other Americans fight Israel’s wars.

            As Buchanan said:

            And why should thousands more Americans have to die or come home to be fitted for metal limbs so Israel can remain sole proprietor of a nuclear weapon from Morocco to Afghanistan?

            You’re the one cheerleading for attacks that will get Americans killed, so I presume you’ll celebrate the blowback.

          • We should pay attention to the opinions of the sick, twisted, demented, evil frack who wrote:

            Will you be popping the champagne when American forces die in
            Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Kuwait as a result of Iranian retaliation to
            your hallowed Israeli strike?


          • herddog505

            Gotta agree.  The only cheering I’ve seen for dead Americans was on the part of a handful of twisted lefties during the worst fighting in Iraq.

            I’m not counting the despicable “score card” that MiniTru kept, the running tally of American dead that (magically) disappeared after January, 2009.

          • Wasn’t it remarkable (and thoroughly predictable) that the body count stopped being reported on a daily basis once 0bama was sworn in as [P]resident?

            And yeah, chick and the rest of the twisted lefties cheering for more dead Americans were, are, and always shall be, despicable.

    • Oysteria

      Wow, we go from an explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base caused by exactly who or what we don’t know, and a computer virus attacking Iran’s nuclear program by who we also don’t know, all the way to $25 a gallon gas and Romney putting our daughters on the front lines of the Iran/Iraq border.

      I love hyperbole.  It’s a lot of fun when cracking jokes, but when the discussion requires a certain level of seriousness, eh, not so much.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t worry Barry, Ahcmadman doesn’t mind if you continue campaigning between rounds of chaugán..