Al-Qaeda was responsible for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so what's one more? The only negative aspect is that the US wouldn't be included in this one, so there's no potential profit in it -- that's what pisses Gates.

The basic problem is that Pakistanis don't like Americans.

form the latest Pew Global Attitudes Project, Aug 13, 2009:
"Opinions of America and its people remain extremely negative. Barack Obama's global popularity is not evident in Pakistan, and America's image remains as tarnished in that country as it was in the Bush years. Only 22% of Pakistanis think the U.S. takes their interests into account when making foreign policy decisions, essentially unchanged from 21% since 2007. Fully 64% of the public regards the U.S. as an enemy, while only 9% describe it as a partner."
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID...

Fully 64% of the public regards the U.S. as an enemy, that's not good.

on the Banking Committee:
"Now known as the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to underscore the diversity of issues under its purview, the Committee plays an integral role in managing legislation that affects the lives of many Americans. These areas of jurisdiction include, but are not limited to: banking, insurance, financial markets, securities, housing, urban development and mass transit, international trade and finance, and economic policy."

The Committee has done such a fine job in those areas that it will now tackle Iran. Why not?

Meanwhile there have been new allegations by David Albright which were supposedly gleaned from the "smoking laptop" that has been around for a couple years, even though it has been thoroughly debunked.

Albright's ISIS website has "excerpts" from a purported IAEA 67-page long report titled “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program.”
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IAEA...

So we can look forward to the possibility of hearing these new "revelations" from the bomb-Iran crowd. Perhaps Gordon Prather is on it.

You didn't remember correctly.

In a democracy the people, acting through the Congress, are the deciders. Okay, I know it isn't being done, but now with Antiwar.com and blog-power just think of the possibilities!

At least there might be some discussion now about the mission, the goal, which should precede any discussion of strategy. What is the objective? Is it really to build a democratic government in a tribal country that has never had a strong central government? After eight years of combat it's about time that someone raised the question about where we expect to go.

Obama's goal as announced in March was to go after al-Qaeda. Then six weeks later Petraeus said AQ was not in Afghanistan. All summer McChrystal talked about fighting Taliban. Last month Obama said we have to narrow the goal in Afghanistan to fighting AQ. Total confusion. Total BS. The President needs to say what the goal is. NOW. Otherwise Gen. McChrystal (as he has) will determine the goal, even though it's 'way above his pay grade.

How many presidential national emergencies are enough?

There were nineteen (19) US national emergencies declared by President George W. Bush, and according to a law passed to eliminate such foolishness, they must be renewed on their anniversary or they expire. President Obama has renewed all fourteen of the NE's that were due to expire since his inauguration, with five to go. The first NE that Obama renewed deals with the terrible threat from the Ivory Coast: -- – "Because the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on February 7, 2006, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 7, 2009."

The most recent NE s Obama renewed were two that were due to expire in September on the terrorist threat. Two national emergencies on terrorism. The next NE Obama will undoubtedly renew will be on Sudan: -- "the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan" , last renewed October 30, 2008.

Iran, as an NPT signatory, has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, and the IAEA is EXCLUSIVELY limited to verifying the non-diversion of nuclear energy to weapons programs. While the IAEA has consistently and repeatedly determined that there has been no diversion, the IAEA has been roped into UN politics for other purposes which are outside of its legal purview.

Article III, NPT
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

** for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy**

3. The safeguards required by this article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

**to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities**

Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

**the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes**

General McChrystal should go for the insubordination mentioned above, plus the insolence he displayed in wearing his cammies for the 25-minute dress-down by the CINC on Air Force One. McChrystal had worn his Class A's for the London speech, but went to the Class C's for the President. Not only was this insolent, but it was in violation of Army Regulation 670-1 which says that Class A's (greens) should be worn on public occasions, and utility uniforms are reserved for specific duties in the field, in hospitals etc.

Take up the largest drill you can find and bring it over to Phoenix. Start drilling straight in on a constant latitude and eventually that drill will emerge on the other side of the world, in the barren hills of the Hindu Kush. Well, not entirely barren, because the US has military outposts there, protecting Americans including the millions in Phoenix. Makes sense to me.