« And Now For Something Completely Non-Charles Isherwood Related, A Man With Three Buttocks | Main | Martin Sheen Is The Man »

April 12, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lucas Krech

You could sign this:

Although I am seriously consideringleaving thecountry if we do another preemptive attack.

John Branch

The petition that Lucas linked to sounds good, though I haven't read it yet. There's also the old idea of writing a letter or email to your senators and congressman in the federal legislature. We could say not only that we don't want our country to attack Iran but also that we want the balance in decisions to start a war shifted back to the legislative branch. (I think there's a congressional website where emails can be submitted, but I haven't looked it up.) We could also write to the White House and express the same things. And we should encourage others to do this.

Is there something else? Maybe so. I'm discouraged by the very idea of another pre-emptive attack, and being discouraged doesn't lead to good thinking.

Finally, there's the option of voting with one's feet, which Lucas suggests.


You see, this is why I think we need to get innovative. I did that, I do that stuff all the time (And it is important, and I will do it again, don't worry) but it's obviously not enough.

George Hunka

You know, it's funny, Isaac, but the last time I was in therapy it was just after 9/11, and my therapist thought that my depression had something to do with that. Of course it didn't explain why I'd been depressed since about 1975.

I don't think that leaving the country, a personal statement that Lucas and John discuss, is any sort of a solution. It didn't end the war in Vietnam, or any other war for that matter; one is not complicit in war by the nature of one's citizenship but by the nature of one's humanity, which knows no geographical boundaries.

Believe me I don't trust this administration any more than anybody else, but the situation now is different than it was at the beginning of the Iraq War: Bush is a lame-duck President, his numbers are low, people are getting sick of the situation in Iraq, and just considering the realpolitik involved in garnering both domestic and international support for another adventure like this, I just don't think it'll happen. I may be horribly wrong of course, but the initial response from the White House even to that dopey press conference in Iran a few days ago was low-key.

Like I say, I may be horribly wrong, but I still think it's a little too early to be packing an overnight bag.


I'm tired of internet petitions. These guys already know there are a bunch of us on the internet who oppose them.

The most important thing we can do to this end is to help the Democrats take back one or both houses of Congress this fall. It involves unglamorous things like volunteering for campaigns (Staten Island Rubber Stamp Republican Vito Fossella now has a Dem challenger!), giving bits of money to challengers when you can and (he said with a sigh) even supporting imperfect Democrats. It's our only chance. (Not Lieberman, though. A person has limits. I donated to Ned Lamont.)

John Branch

Re. George's comment: I wouldn't exactly feel complicit in the Iran war any more than I do in the Iraq war, but some people do feel that way; I wasn't trying to answer only for myself. Besides, it's possible every day for some of us to die here as a result of an attack provoked in part by our government's actions abroad. And if that danger worried me enough, it could be reason to move, complicity or not.

BTW, I don't think it's likely either. Among other practical problems, the military might recognize that a big show in Iran is beyond its means until the show in Iraq is over. (However, I don't mean we should count on the military to keep us out of it.)


Guys... the option being put on the table right now is a tactical nuclear strike, not an invasion. These are the guys who deluded themselves with visions of "candy and flowers" and a simple invasion and took over Iraq according to that delusion. We don't ahve the *manpower* (without a draft) to invade Iran. But we certainly have the capacity to go to war with it.

Look, some of this is probably saber-rattling, after all, it's not like we went to war with either Noth Korea or Pakistan, right? But it scares me when Sy Hersh's claims of a tactical nuke plan and BUsh posessed by a messianic, Iran-"saving" legacy are confirmed by Pentagon sources...


and PS: you don't need popular support, or actually really any support at all as President to launch nuclear weapons. Just thought i'd remind you all of that.

John Branch

I don't recall exactly what Seymour Hersh's article said, but I remember sources in it talking about "regime change" again, as well as a number of other possible bombing targets beyond the Iranian nuclear facilities.

As for the president's not needing any support, I'm aware of that. A fuzzy matter in the Constitution: the president is in charge of the armed forces, but the Congress is supposed to make declarations of war. Doesn't actually work that way any more, I know.


It never worked that way really as far as I can tell. We live essentially in an elected dictatorship currently where the President has claimed nearly limitless authority both as sole interpreter of the law and executor of military decisions. Since military decisions are currently basically all decisions, ipso facto he really answers to no one. Given this: how do we stop war with Iran?

The only answer that comes to mind is that we impeach him for what he's already done before he can do anything worse. Given a complacent opposition party and a Republican majority, however, that seems impossible. Is it?


The rub of the situation is that any notions of war with Iran don't start and end with Bush. Despite his obvious personal failings, mendacity and legacy-fervor, he's just the front man for a whole pack of people that believe that preemptively attacking nations (conveniently for the oil barons among them, Middle Eastern ones) should be the cornerstone of our foreign policy. That's not going to change if we oust the guy and inaugurate President Cheney--it may even hasten the process. And if, through some miracle, we were even able to knock them both down, President Hastert doesn't really float my boat.

Until we win back the Congress, there's not much we can "do" other than protest loudly and hope that the discredited real-politickers keep these crazy Iran notions at bay. Hate to sound like a netroots cheerleader, but we have to take our government back at the ballot box, first in 2006 and then in 2008. That involves discrediting the entire Bush/PNAC foreign policy, not just knocking him off his perch.

Matt Yglesias posted on this today at Tapped.


Well, I'm also totally creeped out by the Sy Hersh piece, and the follow-ups from inside sources about the president wanting to "double down" (as one blog put it) on his legacy by doing Iran next.

And I agree with you, Isaac, that we couldn't invade Iran the same way we did Iraq without a draft. And with their message of all-gain, no-pain, the GOP won't be pushing that any time soon.

Having said that, there are two points I want to add to the discussion:

1) Not to be, well, alarmist, but isn't anyone else here alarmed at the prospect of Iran getting the bomb? Would you trust this Ahmadinejad guy -- with his calls to "wipe Israel off the map" and "debate" the Holocaust (one gets the idea he wants to be the one to finish the job) -- with his finger on the button?

In the Cold War, at least we had the option of deterrence, but hard to see how that could be in play here (and whether we'd even want to treat a nation with Iran's record on human rights -- its suppression of women and religious minorities, not to mention its routine torture and murder of gays -- as an equal partner in anything).

2) I think Mark is right on on the time- and labor-intensive (and, therefore, perhaps not so sexy) option of working to elect Democrats to the House and Senate. As soon as the Dems get control of one house, they get subpoena power, and I would bet anyone money (and I hate gambling) that there are things we haven't even imagined yet that will come out. The GOP in Congress basically decided to stop having ethics investigations (of themselves or the White House) back in 2001 or so, and the bodies could really start piling up when those floodgates open.

However, I'd say that there's a way those of us with blogs could contribute to the GOP's downfall: highlight their hypocrisy. There's so much of this to go around, some of it is sure to strike everyone's fancy.

Now, we should be careful to consider the two categories of Republican hypocrisy: that which will rile up the general voter, and that which will disillusion (or anger) their base into staying home.

I've written up my points, they are rather long, so I'm posting them over at my blog, Buckeye Road (linked from my initials below) -- so come check out the details there, if you like.


The post I referred to is called "Running Out the Pharisees" and is available here:



Well, in terms of doing something . . . signing internet petiions amounts to exactly zero. They mean nothing to anyone in power and are useless.

so does, at least at this time and day, supporting the democrats, who had more power when we invaded Iraq and rubberstamped that move and most still haven't apologized for it . . . and, except for one or two, refuse to censure dubya for what he's done and continues to do. The dems are worse than the repubs because they recognize they're doing wrong but are too ballless to really do anything about it.

Marching is good, though its my belief that other than the personal satisfaction it give to the participants, which is important and necessary, it amounts to exactly zero influence upon our current politicos, both dems and repubs . . . a half a million marched in new york alone before the iraq war and no politician really cared, nor do they still.

so what can we do? Well, we're doing it . . . the war on this administration is one of ideas and we're already turning that tide . . . we have to fight with IDEAS, just like in the sixties, when the country shifted from one of racial inequity toward civil rights, we're slowly shifting toward a greater honesty and responsibility . . . how can we involve ourselves? By constantly putting forth the idea that this administration is dishonest and corrupt, by constantly campaigning toward equality and reason rather than fear and mindless religion, by not letting go unscathed those in our lives who maintain and further the lies that damage us, by engaging in the fight of right ideas versus the the ideas based on lies and fear and corruption.

No one of any merit or ethics publically believes black people are less than white people (expect for Rudy G, and he tries to hide it) because racial equality was an idea fought over years and years.

We have another fight now, and it's not the politicians, it's the people in our family who voted for Bush (and most of us have at least one) it's the pundits who walk among us spouting Fox News lies, it's the regular people who support those that are corrupt that we must reach. We need to make it extremely UNCOOL to believe and practice what these fuckers in power (like Cheney) practice, to the point where they're ashamed to show their face in public, like the Klan members of today. Get in Bill O'Reilly's face. We need to show people how unreasonable, how stupid and how uncool and corrupt it is to believe anything bush, hannity or limbaugh believe and then, THEN will we have won.

And trust me when I say that fight has already begun.

Okay, I'm done ranting. but it felt good, I gotta say.


I'm with BT. Iran's leadership is oppressive and extremist. They're beating women in the streets and entrapping and murdering gay people. I don't want to see that kind of thing continue. I don't know what the answer is, though....

Perhaps that's a conversation worth having...not only how do we meaningfully influence Washington away from aggression, but what do we do that isn't military to actively support regime change or at least some kind of persuasive action against an oppressive, abusive, extremist regime? I suppose Apartheid South Africa comes to mind and some of the organized movements against that government, but somehow I get the feeling that pop songs and boycotts aren't necessarily going to do the trick here....


"Iran's leadership is oppressive and extremist. They're beating women in the streets and entrapping and murdering gay people. I don't want to see that kind of thing continue."

This isn't just happening in Iran - it's happening throughout Africa, throughout the mideast (Saudia Arabia, anyone?) all through Asia (especially China) and yes, it happens here in this country as well. Women are beaten and discriminated against and gay folks are killed (hello Matthew Shepard) - In South Dakota, if a twelve year old girl is raped by her father and gets pregnant, it's against the law for that girl to get an abortion.

so while they may be good reasons to be prepared for a fight with Iran, the ones listed above are not - Not that those things should be endorsed, not that we shouldn't do all in our power to eradicate bigotry and oppression everywhere - I'm simply saying that those reasons are not enough to drop a bomb on a country. When you do that, you end up hurting the folks you're trying to save.

I get purple with rage whenever a politico talks about how we had to invade Iraq because of the tens of thousands of civilians Saddam killed during his rule and that's why we had to make war on that country. What they leave out is how many tens of thousands (probably well over a hundred thousand) of innocent civilians were killed by OUR bombs when they dropped on cities filled with non-military personnel, women and children. I would like an exact accounting, someday, of who caused the death of more civilians, Saddam or the US. I bet this war wins the higher number.

The war wasn't to save Iraq's people from Saddam and anyone who maintains that is a liar and a hypocrite.


I meant to write "there may be good reasons to be prepared" and not "they may be good reasons to be prepared" in the post above. My apologies.


I mainly agree with you, Joshua. If you'll re-read my original comment ("what do we do that isn't military", etc.), you'll see that. I do have quarrels with some of your analogies, but the point I'm trying to make is that I find it a particularly interesting challenge to be faced with both a strong concern for the Ahmadinejad regime and a strong concern for what the Bush administration might be wanting to do about it. Further, I don't think it's hypocritical to share concerns about an extremist government with the leaders in government whose policies and past record I oppose.

I'm as disgusted with Bush and his administration's lies as anyone, and I don't take any of his policies in the Middle East at face value. At the very least, what this administration has done in Iraq and what it could do in Iran only make me more concerned.

I'm in the same boat as Isaac on this -- I've written letters to my senators and the White House and the U.N. about the human rights abuses in Iran -- what else can I do?


I didn't say it was hypocritical to share your concerns with politico's who you oppose.

I said it was hypocritical for anyone, republican or democrat, to use Saddam's terrible treatment of his citizens as a justification for what we have wrought upon them via this war.

We went to war because we were told that we were to be attacked and attacked soon. This turned out to be false, therefore many proposed that this war was still the right thing to do (John Kerry being in this camp) because of Saddam's foul treatment of his people. Couple this sentiment with the number of civilians killed by US weaponry and the number of Iraqis imprisoned and TORTURED and you have a recipe for extreme hypocrasy.

Writing letters to senators does no good - they don't care. And before anyone writes to disagree, I have it on good authority from a former staffer for a Senator - they do NOT listen to letters or calls - they follow the agenda set by their party. That's it. No one elected cared that a half a million people protested in New York City before the war.

You have to reach everyone else. Just like I wrote in the above post, we need to change public sentiment and the politicians will follow. This is a case where a song or a book is sometimes more powerful than a letter.

Reach the people we all know who haven't gotten it yet. Then the wheel will turn.


I'm wondering, Joshua, how you'd answer my first question above: Are you troubled by the prospect of Iran (the Ahmadinejad regime, and the brutally oppressive theocracy backing it up) getting their hands on a nuclear bomb?

I'd be the first to say the Bush administration has its share of failings and sins (with the Iraq war and Katrina, and that's just for starters).

There's a lot that hasn't been made public yet, but there's certainly enough for a thorough investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, and likely for articles of impeachment (given the low standard for impeachment set by the GOP against Clinton).

And, aside from impeachment, certainly there is the real possibility of criminal prosecutions of Bush, Cheney, and their top advisors, particularly Rumsfeld and Gonzales, both within the U.S. and internationally (due to their torture policies that violated the Geneva Conventions). I have a feeling they won't be leaving the country much after January 2009.

However, having said all that, if you're troubled at all about the prospect of Iran getting the bomb, then do you think this is something we can wait until 2009 (or until the end of the impeachment trials, which could take almost till then) to deal with?

If we leave it for three years, for Bush's successor, that may be enough time for Iran to expand to the number of centrifuges it needs to enrich uranium to the degree needed for nuclear warheads.

I'm not saying action against Iran needs to be taken right now. Diplomatic efforts are still in the works -- though it's hard to see how Iran could be deterred, and Russia and China still oppose any sanctions.

But short of their leaders suddenly converting to pacifism (or otherwise giving up their nuclear ambitions), Iran may well have nuclear warheads in a few more years. That's why I'm so concerned about this situation. Team Bush are hardly unbloodied actors on the international stage, but I don't know that we can afford to wait for someone else with clean hands to solve this problem.


It's too bad Americans dont believe that taking up the streets work. There would be a lot of us on the street if people believed in it. Look at France ?
They fucking got some of what they want in the universities with what happened the last couple of weeks !!!


China has the bomb. So does Pakistan and India, right? Does that trouble you? It troubles me.

Iran? Sure I'm troubled by it, but I'm troubled that we have the bomb, too. I'm troubled by any theocracy that has the capability to wipe out those that don't believe as we do. Right now, we fit that bill too. how are we better than they? How many other countries have attacked and invaded and BOMBED a country that posed no real or serious threat? In the the last ten years, how many have done that?

Personally, I'm troubled by a lot of things. But I'm more troubled by the ethically and moral lapses happening in our name today than I am with something that may or may not possibly happen in 2009. And if I were Iran, looking at what happened and is happening with Iraq, I'd be running for a bomb, too. Because I'd be sure that we'd be next to be obliterated and therefore would do anything in my power to defend myself.

Make no mistake. Iran is a theocracy that I do not approve of (I don't think any government should be run on the basis of religion and that means Isreal too) and is a danger, sure. And they probably hate us (our president did describe them as one of the axis of evil in 2000) and would like to see the US disappear in a cloud of smoke. Don't YOU think we've given them reason to fear. They're terrible, true, though I think what's happening in the sudan is more terrible, in terms of human rights, than anything in sudan. Are they a threat now?

But if I were Iran, I'd be scared of the US and for good reason. If I were them, I'd be certain that the US wanted to obliterate everyone in my region of the world. If I were them, I would be busting my butt to find ways to protect myself seeing as that plans are already drawn up and talked bout in the US to invade my country. And that it's in the US papers every day that Iran is next. If I were Iran, I'd be shitting my pants for every man, woman and child in my country. some of them are terrible tyrants, but some are just people.

So yes, I am bothered. I'm bothered that my country is doing so much damage and creating so much fear all because a President feels he's doing "god's" work and nothing else matters.

Doesnt' that bother you more?


I'm glad you raised the examples of other nations, because that is part of the point I was trying to make about Iran. The case there is quite different from other countries that have the bomb. China and the U.S., for instance, effectively deter each other, as do India and Pakistan (so long as the latter is stable, though I'm hardly happy with the way Musharaff is accomplishing this).

Compare this with Iran, where just yesterday President Ahmadinejad linked his country's nuclear ambitions to their hatred of Israel, saying, among other things, that Israel was "a 'permanent threat' to the Middle East that will 'soon' be liberated."

There was also this:

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Far from acting out of fear, as you suggest, I'd say the Iranian regime is acting in a position of strength. They know that we can't sustain a military invasion and occupation on the level of Iraq (as very flawed as it's been) on our own, and they know Bush would have a very hard time getting any kind of coalition to come along for the ride.

Iran is also very astute at playing to the tensions within the international community. Russia and China, for instance, oppose the idea of sanctions (before we get to specifics), due to their dependence on future oil contracts with Iran. That leaves the Brits, French, and Germans as the big players at the table, but they have so many political problems in each of their own countries, it's hard to see how they could muster support for international action on a grand scale.

Your point about Sudan points to this problem more generally: the international community has a hard time getting its act together when it comes to genocide, whether it's going on now (as in Sudan) or still early in the planning (as in Iran). (There was a wonderfully written book about this dilemma a few years back, The Problem From Hell, by Samantha Power, definitely worth a read.)

I think that covers what other people are up to. Now, as for us -- the U.S. I wholly and completely reject your characterization of the U.S. (and also of Israel) as a theocracy. A theocracy is a nation where religious authorities play a formal role in the government, or else where laws are written to encode religious beliefs as applying to the entire populace.

Iran is a theocracy, as was Afghanistan under the Taliban. In both cases, the mullahs played a key role in developing policy, advising (or otherwise controlling) the heads of state, and regulating the day-to-day lives of the people -- leading to all that nasty oppression of women, gays, and religious minorities -- not to mention the suppression of political dissent.

Outside of the Middle East, there are very few countries in the world that still give religious authorities such direct influence and power in their governments. The Vatican is the only other one I can think of off the top of my head.

Contrast this with the United States, Israel and also India -- all three countries are pluralistic (multi-religious and multi-ethnic) democracies where sovereignty rests entirely with the people. Now, it may be that a majority of the people ascribe to the same religion (i.e. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism), and politicians may well couch their campaigns in religious language, but religious authorities play no role in passing legislation, enforcing it on a day-to-day basis, or choosing or removing heads of state.

Now, Bush and other Republicans certainly like to appeal to a certain strain of Christianity, and they certainly give the impression of wanting to mix church and state. But their attempts so far have been mostly meager, and they have almost entirely failed. The only place I can think of where they have succeeded to some degree is in his "faith-based initiatives" -- giving public funds to religious charities to do social work -- I'm surprised there hasn't been a court challenge to this.

And that is my other point about how the U.S. and Israel are the opposite of theocracies. We have multiple political parties; we have the courts; we have the freedom of dissent. Theocracies, by their orthodox nature, stamp out dissent along with all other expressions of doubt.

Now, I do suspect (from all I've read) that the president does think he's doing "God's work" in Iraq -- spreadin' freedom and democracy, as he might put it. I, for one, have always doubted the premise that a country with a long history of religious and ethnic violence could ever become a pluralistic democracy, let alone overnight. So I hardly shared the president's overly sunny optimism, and I certainly fault him for the complete lack of follow through -- not having enough troops on the ground to secure things after Saddam's fall, which has let things devolve into the state of near-civil war we have now.

But if the president did think he was doing "God's work" in liberating Iraq -- and more people have been voting in their elections than in our own -- how do you square that with your comment that he (or we) "obliterated" them?

To answer your final question: As I've said here, and on my own blog, I'm very troubled by a lot of things the Bush administration has done -- perhaps even more so by those it's failed to do (in Iraq, and in the aftermath of Katrina). And I have not hesitated to exercise my freedoms to speak out on this, to assemble, to petition my government for redress of grievances.

These are all freedoms that people in Iran don't have. Their government even cracks down on bloggers, and on Internet use more generally. The only fear Ahmadinejad and his mullahs feel is toward their own people. They certainly aren't afraid of us.

I suspect that might be part of the reason for the leaks (from a White House notorious for controlling leaks) about plans to use tactical nukes in Iran. That's perhaps the only plan we could realistically pull off at this point, and presumably it could strike fear into the populace. Obsessed as he is with his legacy, I doubt Bush would want to go down in history as the only president ever to drop the bomb preemptively.

So I'm troubled by both, but far more by the situation with Iran. That's not to say the situation with Bush isn't bad, but he has been hamstrung since his re-election (and more by dissenting members of his own party than by Democrats).

Since there's a heck of a lot I (and we) can do about Bush and the GOP, they trouble me much less than an oppressive theocracy on the fast-track to genocide.


Before I respond to the rest of your email, I'd like to address this . . . "Now, as for us -- the U.S. I wholly and completely reject your characterization of the U.S. (and also of Israel) as a theocracy. "

Hmm, well . . how many non-Jewish citizens of Isreal serve in the government? How many Palestinians are represented? I admit that I do not know, but from my perspective it seems to be a haven for only the Jewish. Am I mistaken and it's a democratic republic that houses all people of all beliefs? I think that the mere creation of the state for the sole purpose of giving a place for people of only one race and creed sort of belies any argument that they are NOT a theocracy. But that's another argument for another day.

Hmm. US. Theocracy.

I think we only need look at just about any speech Bush gives in which he invokes God . . . and I ask you, just how many of our politictians are not Christians or Jews . . . because I don't have that number - I don't know of any who are not, as a matter of fact.

But I love how Congress opens with prayer to god. I love that our elected officials are sworn in by placing their hands on a bible and pledging an oath under god. As a non-christian buddhist, I just love that.

But instead of using Bush, who's such an obvious example, let's go back to South Dakota - Here's an exchange with South Dakota Republican Senator Bill Napoli:

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.


So if you're a religious virgin saving yourself for marriage and you're "brutally raped, savaged... sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it", your rape matters enough to justify an abortion. If you're not religious, you don't.

So. You may maintain that we are not a theocracy (and we are not supposed to be, according to our constitution, but you're also supposed to have a warrant for a wiretap under the constituion as well) and I understand why you would say that. I maintain that if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a goddamned duck.


And Bush is hamstrung exactly HOW?

Let's see, social security reform didn't fly. Harriet Meyers didn't fly.

That's it. Seems to me, he doesn't just about anything else he wants, including breaking the law.

Now then. About Iran. Terrible, yes. Terrible that they want to obliterate Israel and zionism or what the fuck it is, is a terrible, terrible thing. You bet.

But if you think that Iran arming itself with nuclear arms has nothing to do with our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, I call you naive.

Of course they'll call out Israel, they have to, it's one way to unify the mullahs and what have you, and generally after naming Israel comes a calling on the Isreal-loving US of A, because we are linked to Israel - but it has more to do with us invading Iraq, the arms.

Iran's a terrible place filled with terrible leaders? Okay. I'd like to free Tibet myself. I think terrible things have happened there, too.

Israel gets a lot more support than Tibet or the Sudan or Rwanda and many others and call me silly but I think Israel is fairly capable of defending itself by now and if it's not, it should be. Perhaps I am biased, because I believe that the Israeli government has done fairly terrible things to the people of Palenstine as well. It's hard for me to see Israel as a victim.

So i don't like that Iran will have a bomb. i don't like that it's run by a dictator who rules through religion and the sooner we have no theocracy in any country anywhere, the better for the entire planet. But yes, I am bothered by Iran and what it's doing.

Does that mean we should invade or bomb the shit out of Iran now?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker