Still Hating America.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, how long can Giuliani stay uncommited? Can he make it to super tuesday before he has to kowtow to the right?

I'll be curious. Romney certainly didn't hold out very long - it's almost like he was plotting the right-ward veer for years. Or maybe that was the earlier center-veer.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'll be curious. Romney certainly didn't hold out very long - it's almost like he was plotting the right-ward veer for years. Or maybe that was the earlier center-veer.

Romney can't hold out--he made the decision to plant himself on the conservative side, and has to convince them that Mormons aren't the new Catholics.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I hear a strange buzzing noise.


I'm not talking to you, since apparently I'm not good enough to help in the charitable endeavors you proposed on the FB.

My apologies; I was Northwest focused. You would be more than welcome to join us here in this magical land where you can both booze it up and stare at nekkid chicks. Be warned, though; the lapdances largely suck.

[Spanky]

From Stratfor:

Geopolitical Diary: Israel's Options Against Iran

The Institute for National Strategic Studies, a Tel Aviv-based think tank with strong ties to the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, released its annual report on Tuesday, saying Israel is technically capable of independently carrying out military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.

Israel undoubtedly has been displeased by the manner in which Washington has mishandled Iraq, while Iran has used the situation to reinforce the perception of U.S. weakness and advance its agenda of becoming a nuclear powerhouse in the region, placing it in competition with Israel. With the United States currently lacking any solid options to contain Iran via a political resolution in Iraq, there has been intense speculation over the possibility that Israel might have to get its hands dirty and take military action against Iran -- with or without U.S. cooperation.

Israel's patience might be wearing thin, but an Israeli strike against Iran in the coming year is still unlikely. The Iranians have learned well from the pre-emptive Israeli airstrikes against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 that effectively squashed former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's development of the country's nuclear weapons. Whereas Iraq concentrated its facilities at Osirak, the Iranians have strategically spread out their nuclear sites, several of which can only be penetrated using tactical nuclear bunker buster bombs. Even using these weapons in a sustained air campaign, the Israelis' ability to wipe out Iran's widely dispersed nuclear capability in a first-strike offensive is questionable.

Nonetheless, the Israelis do have an interest in halting Iran's expansion of power and setting back the Iranian nuclear program. This idea would be privately welcomed in much of the Arab world, particularly in Saudi Arabia, which would gladly let the Israelis take the heat for containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and putting a lid on the expanding Shiite power in the region. If anything can get the Saudis and the Israelis to sit down together and talk, it's Iran.

But in Israel's current state of military and political paralysis -- a result of the 2006 summer conflict with Hezbollah -- military action against Iran is not at the top of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's to-do list. Israel recognizes the downside to launching a unilateral attack against Iran. If the military option is to be used, Israel sees the value in having U.S. forces that are well-positioned in Iraq to help carry out the attacks. The problem is that the United States simply cannot risk engaging Iran militarily while Iraq is hanging by a thread. And a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran at a time when the United States is in a severely weakened position in Iraq would further undermine U.S. capability in the region, and place Israel in a more vulnerable position vis-a-vis Iran and its proxies there. The political arrangements Washington has painstakingly attempted in Baghdad would unravel if Iran were to hold the United States complicit in Israel's actions, and Tehran would not hesitate to up its militant assets in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories in order to strike at Israeli and U.S. targets.

The Israelis have a small window of four to five years before Iran develops a weaponized nuclear program. With these considerations in mind, Israel must prioritize the various threats against its national security. For Israel to seriously consider a military option against Iran down the road, it will have to first deal with the pending issue of neutralizing Iran's main proxy on Israel's northern border: Hezbollah. Part of the Israeli decision to engage Hezbollah in a full-scale conflict in 2006 likely involved the need to degrade the group's military capabilities and deprive Iran of one of its key assets in the region. Though that plan did not pan out, Israel is bound to revisit the issue in the coming year.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Israelis have a small window of four to five years before Iran develops a weaponized nuclear program. With these considerations in mind, Israel must prioritize the various threats against its national security. For Israel to seriously consider a military option against Iran down the road, it will have to first deal with the pending issue of neutralizing Iran's main proxy on Israel's northern border: Hezbollah. Part of the Israeli decision to engage Hezbollah in a full-scale conflict in 2006 likely involved the need to degrade the group's military capabilities and deprive Iran of one of its key assets in the region. Though that plan did not pan out, Israel is bound to revisit the issue in the coming year.

Israel didn't engage in a full-scale conflict with Hezbollah. They engaged in an air campaign with some limited ground attacks. Nothing compared to what they could -- and probably should -- have done.

Perhaps we need a pool: By 2009, will Israel invade Lebanon? Will it bomb Iran (or vice versa)? Will the US have over 100,000 troops in Iraq?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'll be curious. Romney certainly didn't hold out very long - it's almost like he was plotting the right-ward veer for years. Or maybe that was the earlier center-veer.

It seems like Romney is trying to be the True Blue (maybe I should say red) Social Conservative. Really weird.

This election year is going to be fun because I have no idea what is going to happen.

I thought 2000 was going to be sedate. But in 2000 McCain caught me off guard in New Hampshire, and then W. caught me off guard with his strong comeback. This time I bet things are going to be even crazier.

This weekend the California Republicans will be voting (at least those of us on the State Central Committee) on changes to the California delegate selection process. One possibility is that the electoral votes will be divided up into congressional districts.

Even crazier is a cabal of social conservatives are working with Giuliani's people to decide strategy at this weekend's convention.

Time for Mr. Toads wild ride.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But, hopefully, between now and then the Slaves and Penskes of the world, working with the Buchanans and Roves of the world, will make that critical move very difficult.

Right. Because I'm a Buchanan-ite populist.

Whereas you are a Catholic Democrat, which according to the folks running Edwards' web campaign, makes you a Christofascist godbag.

[Spanky]

More Stratfor (I can't believe corporate executives pay a lot of money for this stuff)

Geopolitical Diary: Pakistan's Latest Round of Suicide Bombings

A suspected suicide bomber killed himself on Tuesday evening and injured three security guards while attempting to carry out an attack at Pakistan's Islamabad International Airport, marking the country's sixth suicide bombing in the past three weeks.

This latest attack, like the Jan. 26 suicide bombing at the Marriott hotel in downtown Islamabad, appears to have been poorly planned and executed, revealing a low level of sophistication in the jihadist suicide bombing wave in Pakistan.

The bomber, identified as Mohammed Farooq, was driven close to the airport by a suspected accomplice in a 1976 green Toyota Corolla sedan at around 9:10 p.m. local time. The driver claimed to be a chauffeur from a local vehicle rental company that the bomber had hired before the attack. As the car proceeded toward the terminal building, the vehicle went through a routine physical checkpoint at the airport entrance. When the guards began asking questions, the bomber jumped out of the car and ran toward the airport's VIP lounge, firing his pistol at them. According to eyewitness reports, the attacker threw a grenade and then tripped and exploded once he hit the ground. It is not clear at this point whether the attacker had explosives on him that detonated or whether he died from the grenade blast, but reports of the discovery of the bomber's severed head indicate he detonated a suicide vest.

The explosion occurred a few yards away from the airport's main gate, leaving only the bomber and a handful of security guards in the blast radius. The driver was apprehended by security forces, which also found another grenade in the vehicle. The manner in which this attack was carried out illustrates the poor training of the attacker, who appears to have panicked and initiated the attack prematurely when he reached the first layer of airport security.

During the Marriott hotel attack in downtown Islamabad, the bomber waited outside a door near a main road that once was used by employees to enter and exit the hotel. The bomber apparently attracted the suspicions of a security guard while he was waiting to infiltrate the hotel during a shift change -- but because of concerns about the entrance's vulnerability, security staff had ordered the door closed. The planners of the Marriott attack apparently were acting on old information and were unable to adjust their plan.

The poor quality of these plans could indicate they were hastily prepared. On average, it takes weeks to prepare and transport a jihadist suicide bomber from his home country to the attack site. The bombers employed for the recent attacks in Islamabad, however, have exhibited weak operational surveillance and appear to have received inadequate indoctrination and training. In both cases, their suspicious and panicked behavior gave them away and provided Pakistani security forces with enough notice to thwart the attacks.

While the Islamabad bombings have thus far been unsuccessful, there are likely more to come in the capital city and Karachi as al Qaeda and its allies among the Pakistani Taliban appear to be in the midst of a wider suicide attack campaign. Bombings in Pakistan's volatile North-West Frontier Province and in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas over the past few weeks have aimed at increasing the cost of the Pakistani forces' crackdown on militants in the area. The more recent selection of the Marriott and the Islamabad International Airport indicates the jihadists are widening their scope to strike at high-profile targets where a large number of Westerners would congregate.

This new rush of bombings in Pakistan likely is connected to recent airstrikes in the country's northwest that have provided jihadist forces with fresh recruits to carry out these suicide missions -- though the capabilities of these enlisted bombers are questionable. The Oct. 31 airstrike against a madrassa in the village of Chingai, in Pakistan's northwestern tribal belt, and the Jan. 16 airstrike that was meant to destroy a militant hideout in Pakistan's South Waziristan agency resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, providing the jihadists with both a challenge and an opportunity to up their numbers.

With the Pakistani government facing increased pressure from the United States to play a bigger role in cracking down on militants in the region, the jihadists have realized that they cannot count only on their ties to elements within the Pakistani security and intelligence services to provide them with a safe haven. The attacks essentially convinced the jihadists that if they did not retaliate and demonstrate to Islamabad the cost of taking action against them, they would be left defenseless against the United States as Islamabad gradually shifts its strategy of managing the country's militants.

As a result, the jihadists have initiated a new campaign to thwart U.S. operations and create a larger crisis for the Pakistani government under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who already is in a tight spot as the country gears up for a heated election season. Though Washington has pressured Musharraf to provide greater cooperation in cracking down on al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the country, the Pakistani president knows that any crackdowns or counterattacks must be measured in order to avoid setting off a domestic backlash that would compromise his political standing. The constraints Musharraf faces in dealing with the militant threat aid the jihadists, as they can stage a series of suicide attacks in an attempt to get the United States to ease the pressure on the Pakistani government for fear of further jeopardizing Musharraf's hold over the country.

Meanwhile, Pakistani operations against the jihadists that result in civilian casualties will generate more sympathy for the militants and turn more citizens against the government in tribal areas. U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism operations already have generated a wave of hatred among the ethnic Pashtuns in the northwest, where al Qaeda and its allies pick up recruits and material resources to carry out these attacks.

[Spanky]

1226 GMT -- PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY -- Palestinian National Authority (PNA) President Mahmoud Abbas and officials from the rival Hamas group, including PNA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, began crisis talks in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, on Feb. 7. The leaders vowed to remain in the country until they have reached an agreement to end the fighting.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Israel didn't engage in a full-scale conflict with Hezbollah. They engaged in an air campaign with some limited ground attacks. Nothing compared to what they could -- and probably should -- have done.

I agree with you on that.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Perhaps we need a pool: By 2009, will Israel invade Lebanon? Will it bomb Iran (or vice versa)? Will the US have over 100,000 troops in Iraq?

I don't think Isreal will do either in 2007 or 2008. I don't think the US will have over a 100,000 troops in Iraq in 2009.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
1226 GMT -- PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY -- Palestinian National Authority (PNA) President Mahmoud Abbas and officials from the rival Hamas group, including PNA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, began crisis talks in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, on Feb. 7. The leaders vowed to remain in the country until they have reached an agreement to end the fighting.

I believe the official name of the summit is "How we can learn to just stop fighting each other and get back to blowing up Jews"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I believe the official name of the summit is "How we can learn to just stop fighting each other and get back to blowing up Jews"

"How we learned to stop worrying and love the (suicide) bomb"?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
"How we learned to stop worrying and love the (suicide) bomb"?

I was thinking that way, but you nailed it. 10 point stick landing.

Well worth the clients time, I might even add

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes. I believe if very strongly and I am surprised you don't. What they want most is for US influence in the region to diminsh. A defeat in Iraq would certainly do that.

You may believe it strongly, but simply repeating the point is not a good way to convince others.

Assad does not have to be a religious zealot to want the US to lose. I has nothing to do with zealotry. It is pure power politics. The US constantly works against Iran and Syria, and so our defeat would benefit them both immensely.

See above.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

Dems should be a lot more careful. Power itself instills arrogance. The belief that you have absolute power makes the arrogance that much deadlier.

...Particularly when you're running the one candidate all but certain to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.