Bush and the Flag

If a Democrat had done this, there would be hell to pay:

Sometimes, You Need Some Straight Talk

After eight years, you finally get it:

Obama Press Conference, South Dakota, May 16, 2008

Take the Bush-McCain Challenge!

Really, the McCain of 2000 is not the McCain of 2008. First of all, he's eight years older and a bit more demented, if you ask me. Second of all, he is morphing before our eyes into our current President, and really, I would rather chop off my own foot and roast it over potatoes and fava beans than have Bush in office for another term. Thank God for term limits!!

Lastly, the Republican Party is mentally and spiritually bankrupt. They have sucked the country dry of money and sanity and it's really time to put an end to their rule over the hearts and minds of some of the American people.

WAKE UP OUT THERE! I'M TALKING TO YOU! GET OUT OF BED! WAKE UP! DON'T MAKE ME COME OUT THERE!!!

Ahem... anyhoo, so take this quiz (complete with those pesky things called FACTS), and see if you can tell the difference between McBush. Click on the image above or here. I was actually shocked that there IS a difference between the two... and that difference is...? McCain is even more batshit crazy than Bush. And that, "my friends," should wake you the frak up now.

**hattip, Maryel!

Six Months and Six Months and Six Months

What where you doing six months ago? What will you be doing six months from now? And six months after that? And afterward?

If you elect Republican John McCain to be the President of the United States, how many excuses will be given for every six months he's in office?

FISA on for Another Day

OK, I know that was a bad pun for a title, but hey, it's late! I'm just glad that the telecomms who illegally spied on you and me won't be getting amnesty... yet.

An update on today's FISA vote from TPMuckracker:

The fight goes on.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) cloture vote failed 48-45 just now, well short of the 60 votes necessary.

In the end, four Dems crossed over to vote with the Republicans: Sens. Mark Pryor (D-AR), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was the lone Republican to vote with the Dems.

For now, the old FISA law, perfectly legal and more than adequate in that a warrant is required for wiretaps, will come back online Friday. However, there may be a vote in the House and Senate over the next few days to extend the present Protect America Act for another 30 days.

Now I want to know: why are Senators Pryor, Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu Democrats? Once again, this Gang of Four have banded together and voted, not only against the best interests of their Party, but against the best interests of the American people as well. Makes my head spin. And thanks, Senator Spector, for being the only Republican to vote with the Dems.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama came back from the campaign trail to vote "Nay" on cloture, and Obama was endorsed by three members of the Kennedy family: Ted, Caroline, and Patrick.

Lastly, some dude gave a speech tonight. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I don't have to listen to him give another one.

365 Days...

... until George W. Bush officially leaves the White House. My sidebar time clock widget is a wee bite off, but still, mark your calendars. Only one more year. It may be the longest year of them all.

Giraffe Kisses the Sun
St. John the Divine Sculpture Garden, New York City, Fall 2007
Photo by Elderta

UPDATE: And it's Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, too! See what happens when you're not working? The days blend into one!

There Should Be a Table to Put This On

I keep hearing the phrase, "Impeachment is off the table." I say, whose table is it off of? On my table, you'll find a big heaping pile of double impeachment for the man (Cheney) and his puppet (Bush).

Look, I've been warning people about Bush and Co., since 2004, when I joined Billionaires For Bush. I thought to myself, "hey, self, use humor to help the masses understand what this administration is all about." Bush won. I wept at my computer the day he won the second election. When I say wept, I mean wept. Big honking tears poured down my face in an uncontrollable assault. AT WORK. Eventually, I tried to look on the bright side and tried to continue the humor for the 2006 election, but seriously now, the greater majority of the country is ready to break under the facade of a sneering Chief Executive and the obvious breakdown of a coherent strategy in Iraq.

I truly think the breaking point to a lot of things came on July 2, when Bush, two days before the celebration of the founding of this country, commuted the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. To add insult to injury, last Thursday, while opening up the new White House Press Room, Bush nonchalantly brushed off a question regarding the commutation with this:

First of all, the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision.

Secondly, I haven't spent a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my administration were forced to give as a result of the special prosecutor. I didn't ask them during that time and I haven't asked them since.

I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person. And, you know, I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, "I did it." Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?

But it has been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course, and now we're going to move on.

You may be moving on, Sir, but some of us won't be moving on until you've moved out. Personally, I hope it's before his present term is up.

I have heard people say that we should let the Administration ride on out into the sunset. Well, no. Time and again this President has treated the Constitution like a doormat that's not good enough to wipe his feet on. Consequently, his emboldened assholery has spread to others, who feel as if the Rule of Law is for Thee and Not for Me. This has got to stop. If we let Bush out of office without even so much as a censure, we will have handed the next President a set of Executive Orders and power that the Executive Branch is not entitled to... impeachment must be put back on the table, and soon.

If you don't believe me, then watch and listen to the man who wrote the first article of impeachment against Bill Clinton.

For the love of the Constitution, tell your Representatives, your Senators, your friends, your family, that the honor of the Constitution demands that Bush and Cheney be impeached. It's your country, people. Don't let your leaders lull you into thinking that it's not, don't let your leaders take it away from you either and don't let them make you afraid of your own shadow. Give them one more kit, and they will take the entire kaboodle. Mark my words. Please. I don't want to have to come back in a few years and say, "I told you so."

Go Read This...

... and then Digg It so that others know about it, too!

July 8, 2007 at 19:44:49 Bush justice is a national disgrace by John S. Koppel http://www.opednews.com

Digg this story

As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.
The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

MORE at OP-Ed News Link

Originally published in the Denver Post, July 5, 2007.

Monday is Stop Gay People Day

Unfuckingbelievable. Unfuckingbelievable.

How many more days do we have to live with this guy as President? How many more days until the Republican Party lead us closer and closer to immigration, race, and anti-gay wars here on the American front?

Unfuckingbelievable. Unfuckingbelievable.

From Atrios and Americablog, we have this rant from Jack Cafferty. I use to watch CNN's Morning Show and Cafferty would rankle my haunches. But the old geezer is hopping mad, and I don't blame him:

CNN's Jack Cafferty rips Republicans for wasting time on gay marriage when country has so many other priorities and problems to address
by John in DC - 6/03/2006 11:13:00 AM

Via Atrios:

Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea?

Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage. This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base.

This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.

In America, we still have a problem within our borders with other people we don't like. In fact, it's very easy, in my opinion, to tip America into discriminatory acts (on the parts of many people) of violence, that would be difficult to hold back. I fear racial and discriminatory violence more than anything else in the world besides a race riot or a terrorist attack.

This administration is just begging for ugliness. I fear they just might get it.

Bush will speak on this today from the Rose Garden. If you can bear it, you can hear or read his White House Radio Address here about the subject.

He's #1! He's #1!

Quinnipiac University just conducted a new poll and asked those surveyed who they thought was the worst President in the post-World War II era.

Guess who's #1?

Go ahead... guess...

OK, fine, it's George W. Bush (among Democrats) and William Jefferson Clinton (among Republicans), though on average, Bush still leads.

You know who really can't stand the man? Younguns 18-29... 42% of 'em rate him the worse.

Maybe there's hope for the youth afterall...

Hattip: Crooks and Liars.

Bushlandia vs. Reality Map

By way of WhiskeyBar, a new map:

This maps reflects the three states that still hold a positive (or Bushlandia) view of President Bush: Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, all with a combined population of 4,288,830 deluded Americans.

Though even those Redstaters are changing their minds, too:

Only residents of Utah, Wyoming and Idaho view the president favorably. Though Bush remains in positive territory, in the past month he has fallen 10 points in Utah, fallen 9 points in Wyoming, and fallen 3 points in Idaho.

Small miracles, baby steps, even if I'd like to take a hammer over their heads...

6+6+06 = Impeachment

Whereever you stand on the issue of impeachment, some genius has taken it one step further. The billboard below is for the remake of "The Omen." The ad actually reads: "6+6+06: You Have Been Warned."

Visual Resistance by way of Gothamist

Add A Caption

"Hey Condi, are you sure this here's a fiddle?"

*Thanks, Vesti!

A Rockwell Moment at the Daily Kos

I kinda love a post over at Daily Kos.

There was a fellow by the name of Harry Taylor who, at a recent Bush speech, stated the following [video]:

Q You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you’d like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are –

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what’s your question?

Q Okay, I don’t have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I — in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and –

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec — let him speak.

Q And I would hope — I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I’m saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.

THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)

Q And I know that this doesn’t come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.

THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate –

Q I don’t have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you.

Over at Kos, Clone12 pointed out a Norman Rockwell moment:

To the Left, Harry Taylor...





To the Right, "Freedom of Speech" by Normal Rockwell


Today, when Mr. Taylor spoke out, the crowd booed.
Freedom of speech, indeed.
Thanks, clone12. Great post!
And thanks, Mr. Taylor, thanks very much.

By the way, Rockwell's painting is from his "Four Freedoms" series inspired by FDR's Four Freedoms address to Congress on January 6, 1941.

Though I do also like zed's interpretation of the two women near Mr. Taylor...

Country Singers Get Uppity

Ooowee... I don't know about Faith Hill and Tim McGraw's politics, but from what I know, country singers usually vote Republican. So... President Bush better shoo nuff watch it when country singers get uppity and spout off about the horrible Katrina response from the Federal government.

Hill and McGraw were promoting their new tour, and as natives of Mississippi and Louisiana, they had some choice words for the gubment.

Via Crooks and Liars,

Tim McGraw and Faith Hill embarrassed over Bush's Katrina response

Hoffmania:

"McGraw specifically criticized President Bush. "There's no reason why someone can't go down there who's supposed to be the leader of the free world … and say, 'I'm giving you a job to do and I'm not leaving here until it's done. And you're held accountable, and you're held accountable, and you're held accountable.

Hill, who grew up in Jackson, Miss., echoed those sentiments. So overwhelmed, she uncharacteristically unleashed an epithet, calling the situation, "Bull- - - -" "It is a huge, huge problem and it's embarrassing," she said...read on

There's a link at Hoffmania to an actual recording of the press conference, while here's an article from AOL about the news conference.

And rutroh... here's the conversative NewsBusters take on the hullababloo... hmmm... they shoot horses and turncoats, don't they?

Word of the Year: Integrity

Just in case you were wondering, the word of the year is integrity.

Every year, the online dictionary version of Merriam-Webster produces a list of the top-ten most searched for words, and when a word spikes, M-W attempts to find a correlation to word interest. (2004's word, during an election year, was incumbent.)

According to M-W Online, by way of a Yahoo article by way of the AP:

The noun, formally defined as a "firm adherence to a code" and "incorruptibility," has always been a popular one on the Springfield-based company's Web site, said Merriam-Webster president John Morse. But this year, the true meaning of integrity seemed to be of extraordinary concern. About 200,000 people sought its definition online.

Hmmm... integrity. Maybe it's what people are looking for these days? Is possible.

Other words that made the top ten list include refugee, contempt, filibuster, insipid, tsunami, pandemic, conclave, levee, and rounding out the list, inept.

While most of the words are apparent as to why Merriam-Webster users looked them up (uproar over Katrina evacuees, the Senate uproar over the filibuster rule, the Asian tsumani, "Oh my God, we're gonna die from bird flu," the election of a new Pope, and exactly what an "embankment for preventing flooding; a continuous dike or ridge (as of earth) for confining the irrigation areas of land to be flooded" is), one might wonder why the words "insipid" and "inept" round out the list. Inept spiked in lookup around the time that President Bush "delivered a live prime time news conference that came to an awkward end when some television networks cut him off to return to their regularly scheduled programs." And insipid? We have to thank Brit native Simon Cowell from an episode of "American Idol" when he introduced new wordsmiths to the word while basically calling an aspiring singer "lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate or challenge: dull, flat," or in other words, insipid.

Now, I find this all very fascinating how the Internet can introduce people to new words and information at their fingertips. Fascinating indeed. However, I'm very surprised that the following word from Merriam-Webster's new Open Dictionary didn't make the 2005 list:

muff bunnies (noun) : The small gatherings of curly hairs that accumulate in the corners of the bathroom and at the shower drain.

"Be sure you sweep up all the muff bunnies before company comes."

Submitted by: Roy Davis from Kentucky Dec. 10, 2005 23:20

Maybe it's just too new. 2006, anyone?

Word to Ya Murtha

Well, the American world (or at least people who pay attention), are paying attention to two things today: Bob Woodward's little "I knew about the Plame thing all along, but lookee me! I'm not gonna tell YOU about it"; and a big fella, happens to be a Pennsylvanian Democrat, a Vietnam war veteran, and a conservative Congressman, John Murtha.

There's word on the street that Dems are finding their balls, particularly as Bush and Cheney go around all Godzilla-like calling Dems undemocratic, dishonest and reprehensible. Man, what fire-breathing monsters Boo and Horrorshow are! Maybe President Bush will bring back a little Gojira from his trip to Japan to remind him how a real radioactive monster does it.

President Bush starring as Godzilla!

So now, John Murtha is coming out, after being an avid supporter of the war, and basically saying, "Whoa! You people in that White House are illin'! I've been to that Iraq, and it's a uncontrolled mess! And don't be talking about going to war when you can't even bother to get your ass fighting during Vietnam, not once, but five times."

"Motherfucker."

Ok, he didn't say 'motherfucker,' but I have one thing to say to you, Representative Murtha ...

... Word.

Dowd vs. Gore

I read a great post linked from Crooks and Liars from "Lawyers, Guns and Lawyers" called Dowd and the Kneecapping of Gore. I've written about Maureen Dowd twice on my nascent blog, one in which I was fully behind her regarding her op-ed on Judith Miller, and then more ambiguously when her book, "Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide" was excerpted in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. So it's probably a good time to remember just what role she played in helping to demonize Al Gore during the 2000 election. She's one of the reasons, among others, that we now have President George W. Bush. And that just makes me cringe.

Scott Lemieux writes:

But when he was busy being elected, Dowd was lying about Gore's fundraising, peddling the "invented the internet" and "summer chores" lies, accusing Gore of flip-flopping with no evidence, writing idiotic pop-psych nonsense including the "earth tones" crap, discussing Hillary Clinton's haircuts, spreading the "Alpha Male" meme, attacking Gore for having the temerity to discuss actual issues in a Presidential campaign, and on and on and on. (And any feminist defense of Dowd should explain her attacks of Gore in re Naomi Wolf's salary. Anybody think she would comment on the salary of a political consultant if said consultant had a penis?) And she didn't just repeat the empty cliches and lies of others. She actually created some: Dowd invented the bullshit Love Story smear.

Yes, it's certainly good to look back and remember what Dowd hath helped wrought the next time I'm leading a cheer when she slams someone I don't like, like Judith Miller.

I had the opportunity to see Al Gore speak twice last year, once for Move On's environmental conference and then his explosive speech at New York University regarding the Bush administration. I must say that I wish he had shown the fire in those speeches that he lacked somewhat during the 2000 election. I think most of that had to do with the hullabaloo during the last of the Clinton years, and Gore wasn't able to find his feet, trying to distance himself from the scandal and stepping out on his own.

But Dowd didn't help Gore with her columns, and her Love Story smear. And that, I should never forget.

Sometimes, you gotta say, "Wha?"

Is Iran trying to get bombed by us? Are we trying to get on the bombing train toward them? Are they upping the rhetoric for their own internal purposes or because they want us to finally come after them and finally fight the war both they and us have wanted to fight since 1979? Are we upping our rhetoric to finally get even for one of the most humiliating events in the history of the U.S.? Are the Iranians funding terrorism in Palestine and Iraq? Are we funding dissident groups to attempt to overthrow the clerical administration of Iraq and install a new Shah? Will the tit-for-tat upscaling of rhetoric between "us and them" get so heated as to explode?

Of course, most of these questions are up for interpretation, but I have to finally get the words out: The U.S. and Iran are on a collision course that, since the Iranian Hostage Crisis (and the overthrow of the Shah that we helped installed before that) has been brewing for a long damned time.

And I doubt this time either side is really going to back down.

I use to know this Iranian guy in Detroit. We went to college together back in 1983. Well spoken, with the most beautiful green eyes, he use to make fun of his Arab friends by saying, "Just remember, I'm Persian, not Arab!" I always thought it was pretty funny, because even though he hung out with them and shared the same religion, he wanted to make sure that his Arab friends remembered he was different. Plus, it just goes to prove that everyone wants to be different in a crowd.

College was really my first exposure to people of Muslim persuasion. I have to say, however, that there was a bit of tension between the Black and Arab populations of Detroit when I was growing up. Many Arabs owned the liquor stores/minimarts in Detroit, and this created a great tension as many blacks didn't have access to the capital to buy and sustain stores, and Arabs were trying to not get robbed in their workplaces. There was a definite disconnect between the two groups in Detroit, and it was always kinda sad.

But back to Iran.

Here's the "wha?" part that I refer to in the title.

I've tried to be as open-minded as I possibly can toward Iran. Not easy, but I try. It's mostly because of the Iranian guy I met in Detroit and others I've met in New York. I appreciate, for the most part, their centuries-old heritage, and there may have been a good reason why the Iranian Revolution happened. I'm not sure what their or our endgame is, the only thing I know is that the road to collision is evident.

I was a bit appalled, along with others, with the rhetoric recently coming out of Tehran when their new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made comments regarding Israel. Rhetoric, of course, is one of several tools that leaders use to stir their people up, be it to spur them on to greater heights or bolster them in the face of an enemy. But whether President Bush is claiming to "Bring Them On" or Ahmadinejad is proclaiming that America is the "Great Satan," the rhetoric gets a little overtired, stale, and wretched.

President Ahmadinejad, recently spoke at a "World Without Zionism" rally in Tehran. Oh boy, that must have been a fun gathering. According to Wikipedia, here's what happened at that rally.

"[Ahmadinejad,] quoting Ayatollah Khomeini the late Supreme Leader of Iran, [called] Israel a "disgraceful blot" that ought to be "wiped off the map." He went on to decry attempts to normalize relations with Israel and condemned all Islamic leaders who recognize Israel's existence as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world"; many believe this attack was aimed at nearby nations Qatar, Bahrain, and Pakistan, who have taken steps towards improving relations with Israel."

Ok. That's going to go over well with folks that don't buy into the 'death to Israel' team. No wonder Islamic leaders are pigeonholed into difficult positions when non-Islamic leaders demand that they 'find' their voices when it comes to speaking out against radical Islamist violence, not to mention their own internal problems. Do so, and you'll be condemned by your own. This, in addition to the fact that many fall under the classic term of dictator, and it's just another volatile ingredient in the whole vile mix.

There's a website that I regularly visit when I want some sane opinions about Iranian politics. It's published by an Iranian-American, located in California. He publishes pieces from exiled Iranians from all over the world, mostly outside of Iran. It's written in English, with occasional Persian-language pieces. (Please note: Iranians speak Persian, not Arabic. My old friend from Detroit would want you to know this.) Iranian.com is secular, encourages debate, and above all, does not want to be 'bored to death' by bad writing, according to its FAQ.

So, to gain a little perspective on Ahmadinejad's words, I read some of the remarks from this primarily moderate site.

"The Mouse That Roared," by Iqbal Latif
Why anyone in his right mind would expose Iran to such brutal multifaceted retribution from entire international community. Iran and Iranians deserve better, they are creator of civilizations, this country has been overtaken by clerical thugs who want to put Iran on to a game of chicken, two heavy duty trucks hurtling down towards each other challenging each one to deviate, the one who does first is a chicken, weaker nations with in-house convulsions such as Iran some time can only survive if they are 'chicken' the real issue of Iran is prosperity of its proud, and worthy people.
------------------
"Old Policy, New Fears" by Masoud Kazemzadeh
Most observers have asserted that Ahmadinejad's words are the result of his inexperience and that they do not reflect the views of the fundamentalist regime or his faction. One of the more extreme examples of the dominant view is expressed by Columbia University Professor Gary Sick, who said: "Ahmadinejad's role has been very substantially reduced... He's been in office for a hundred days. He's done nothing. I think people are looking around and saying 'This guy is a disaster'. I think they [the regime] are going to isolate him and quarantine him." [See]

In this article, I present evidence which proves that the dominant explanation is false. I show that Ahmadinejad's words are the expression of the actual consensus of the ruling faction of the regime. In other words, Ahmadinejad's words are not the mere utterance of one inexperienced person. Rather, Ahmadinejad expressed the views of the Young Conservative sub-faction and the consensus of the hard-line faction which control virtually all the main levers of power in Iran.[2] This is not mere academic exercise. If the dominant explanation is correct, one may not be too concerned about the off-the-cuff remarks of one man. However, if my analysis is correct, we should expect a more confrontational foreign policy by the regime.

[snip] Instead of dismissing fundamentalists as idiots or their actions as amateurish, we should attempt to analyze and understand the motives behind their actions. This could help those who wish to replace the current nightmarish tyranny with a secular and democratic system.
----------
"Deliberate Mistake?" by Yassamine Mather
There is no doubt that many inside the regime were quick to distance Iran from the implications of the words. One observer in Tehran wrote that Ahmadinejad's comments sounded like an invitation to Bush and the US to attack Iran. Others have written with sarcasm that maybe Ahmadinejad is a secret royalist who is keen to give the US a pretext to invade....Even before Ahmadinejad's alleged faux pas, Tehran was full of rumours that every day his office receives phone calls from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ticking him off for making this or that mistake....One explanation of Ahmadinejad's comments is that, following its victory of seeing a Shia state established in Iraq (the main component of the occupation government being pro-Iran Shias), the Iranian regime's image is tainted by its support for the US-UK-imposed government in Iraq....Over the last few months, especially since the coming to power in Baghdad of Iran's main allies, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Daawa Party, as well as most of the Arab press are critical of Iran's influence in the region. This could explain Ahmadinejad's outburst, as Tehran tries to distance itself from accusations of complicity with US policies....Another explanation could be found in the increasing role of Israel and Mossad agents in Iraqi Kurdistan....Iran sees Iraqi Kurdistan as being used by Israel and the USA as a base to strengthen their opposition to Tehran in the same way that Iraqi Kurdistan was used to destabilise the Baathist regime.

So here we have several opinions regarding Ahmadinejad's reasoning behind his rhetoric: Iran is playing "chicken" in order to bolster its status in the world; this language is nothing new, just a continuation of official policy, only this time, it was televised loudly in the West; he's expressing the hardline core of the country's conservatives and clerics; he's constantly being upbraided by current Supreme Leader Khamenei and therefore wanted to say things that would please the clerical leadership; Iran can't afford to stay silent as Israel and the Mossad gain footholds in a new Iraq; Iran is trying to step away from its tacit support of US-UK involvement in Iraq; Iraqi Kurdistan is a problem for Iran, and therefore Iran must up the ante for its own ruling majority to feel empowered.

Whatever the reasons, one thing is for sure, Israel is a sovereign nation, and when threats are made against it or any other nation, one must take notice, no matter what one's opinions regarding said country is. Words are like knives and people are on edge these days. It would be no wonder if Israel didn't take retaliatory measures. But it's also a tip in their favor that Israel didn't retaliate with force. Israel is use to words like this, but there will come a day when words lead to action, and no one can say Israel wasn't provoked.

Which means that the U.S. will be provoked as well.

I don't know if we'll ever really go to war with Iran, but they and we are on notice. Remember the "Axis of Evil?" One country down, so to speak, two to go. I don't want to fight with anyone, and I was against the war in Iraq. But if rhetoric turns into action on the part of Iran, I may have to reconsider. It also depends on what the U.S. does in the next few months as well.