I have a hard time believing this, despite what some notable people (even Greenspan) have explicitly said.

There is a well-established market for oil. We have the largest economy in the world; we can pay for it. We also have the most advanced petroleum technology to get at it.

What is more cost-effective? Buying oil at efficient market prices, or paying the cost to invade, occupy, and "Reconstruct" Iraq to then "get" their oil? Not to mention the further INCREASE in oil prices due to uncertainty caused by the invasion, and further destruction to the existing distribution systems caused by said invasion.

Now, they want a bombing campaign against Iran? No one has said anything about occupying Iran, which would be necessary if it really was "about oil." You can't get oil out of the ground, refine it, and distribute it by bombing the existing petroleum infrastructure into the stone age.

Something doesn't add up...

Anyone else agree?

Unitards don't have drop-bottoms. You're thinking of these:

http://www.snugasabug.com/dropseat.htm

I think you were a bit harsh in your location of the dems. After all, it is Ledeen who writes his blog at Pajamas Media. I'd argue that that makes him a dingleberry on the ass flap.

we find that the 1967 war was not as simple as we thought:

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) attacked the diversion works in Syria in March, May, and August of 1965, perpetuating a prolonged chain of border violence that linked directly to the events leading to war.[15]

I never heard this. I know access to water was a big sticking point between Israel and its neighbors, and I don't justify their actions. But I didn't know Israel started the 1967 war in 1965. That was some prescience!

Kind of wrecks the Israel-is-always-and-perpetually-a-victim narrative, doesn't it? At least as far as direct military action, which is the topic.

And that's just in the second paragraph or so, after the introduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

To portray the 1967 war as Israeli aggression is, to put it mildly, misleading.

Evidence has been put forth in many places that casts doubt on this---that suggests Israel created the whole incident to justify a war it wanted. Maybe so, maybe not.

But where can we find out about such things? Where?

for another holocaust? give me a bleedin' break.

did anyone put franklin roosevelt 'on the dock' for turning awawy boatloads of european jews during world war ii? how 'bout for not bombing the train tracks leading to the camps?

no doubt, neocons are itching for a scrape with iran, but i think it a leap of logic that the gov't of israel is actively pandering to u.s. for a preemptive strike.

against iraq back in 1982 and more recently against syria last fall, israel has asserted its own agency on such matters of hostile development of nuclear capabilities.

That reasoning is nonsense. Despite your token concession that the rulers of the Iranian state are probably, maybe, not quite equivalent to desperate suicide bombers, you imply there is something in their character that makes them "crazy" enough to risk utter annihilation only for spite against Israel.

How does destroying one of the two most powerful and influential Muslim countries help restore the caliphate or anything else that is claimed to be a goal of the Iranian mullahs?

One thing you can count on: Iran does not intend to destroy Israel only to let Saudi Arabia take over the Muslim world.

Only by bizarrely asserting that Iran as a whole has some anti-Jew death-wish can you pretend that MAD doesn't apply.

MAD implies trust. You trust your foe to not act in a manner that would harm himself.

Here we go again with that "Iran is insane" story. There's just no middle ground with these killers, is there?

I wonder how Knob stands on nutjobs with SKS rifles.

As much as I hate to bicker over who killed who, etc, your thumbnail sketch of the 1967 war omitted some facts that are worth knowing. Israel's decision to attack was preceded by the Egyptian dictator's expulsion of the UN peacekeeping force from the Sinai Desert. The Sinai had been de-militarized by the UN in order to prevent further warfare between Israel and Egypt, but Egypt chose unilaterally to expel the UN and re-militarize it. Eqypt also blockaded Israel's ports, an act of war under international law. To portray the 1967 war as Israeli aggression is, to put it mildly, misleading.

Also, Israel did not attack Jordan. The hostilities between Israel and Jordan, resulting in Israel's ill-starred conquest of the West Bank, were initiated by Jordan a couple days into the war.

And why shouldn't the NeoConservatives who cheerled America into Iraq be working dilligently to duplicate their accomplishment in ian?

In a world of no consequences (for them), the occupation of Iaq is a complete success:

1. They got their war.

2. They got their war.

3. They got their war.

Nothing else mattered. And not one of the neoCons has, or ever will, suffer any consequence for hte war: In fact they all have become rich(er) as a result.

And, what are their objectives now?

1. War with Iran

2. War with Iran

3. War with Iran.

President Bush, also someone who has never even heard the word "accountable" and his own name mentioned in the same sentence in his entire life, will almos certainly give another war to the NeoConsa as a farewell president.

Presidential candiate John McCain, who wants to be President in the worst way, will do exactly that by signing on to whatever the White house policy makers want, in return for uncoditional support from the Conservative media, led by FoxNews.

Once in office, President McCain will be freed from accountability for the (then) three failing wars/occupations and permitted to fumble along for several years with a "Stay the Course because it is so important" theme to carry him into a second term.

The NeoCons' solution to what will then be three disasters?

1. War with Syria

2. War with Syria

3. War with Syria

Until China decides to stop lending the US money and pulls the plug at a Treasury Bill auction. At which point the US will go the way of Zimbabwe.