Bolo Boffin's journal - Archives
Comic strips, comic strips. I managed to make a comic about every YouTube video but one. I hope you enjoy.
Some samples of the better ones. Caution, this is a clip-art comic site, so the candidates aren't actual caricatures.
This is how I would expect it to go as well: build the case, strike just over border, wait for response to justify larger strikes and then light them up.
If Iran falls for it?
Then, quite frankly, the mullahs get what they deserve for being such dumb-asses. They should be seeking some serious international insulation, but instead they allow Ahmadinejad's mouth to dig the graves of those citizens who will inevitably die. Not that they care. In fact, it suits their purposes quite nicely.
...Iran should be plenty scared of a large-scale military strike, but, of course, its hardline leadership is not scared, because we could offer them no clearer stabilization program.
Ahmadinejad won't win re-election in 2009 without prompting such a strike, so I guess it has to happen.
I mean, if Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Tehran all want it to happen, who are we to say no?
Articles Barnett is basing this on:
So what are the diplomatic opportunities that might defuse this growing state of tension? I count four, and each of them would require the Bush administration to conduct more aggressive diplomacy:
Lebanon. The moment may finally be ripe for a bargain that ends the year-long standoff between Hezbollah and the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The opportunity for compromise would be agreement on a new president to replace Emile Lahoud. U.S. officials agree with most Lebanese that the right choice would be someone who isn't closely identified with Syria or with the U.S. But it will take some deft maneuvering (and American help) to identify the right candidate and close the deal.
The Palestinian issue. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads back to the Middle East this week to coax Israelis and Palestinians toward agreement on a basic framework for a Palestinian state. The two sides are tantalizingly close, but they will need a strong push from Rice -- probably in the form of an American draft document that summarizes points of potential agreement. Rice would upset the Israelis, but if she can produce an agreement in principle that could be ratified at a regional conference in November, she would disarm Iran's most potent propaganda weapon.
Syria. Petraeus and Crocker indicated last week that security assistance from Syria in recent weeks has cut the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq by nearly half. Many top U.S. military officers think the time to engage Syria is now; so do some senior Israeli officials. The Bush administration should be talking with Damascus, quietly.
The Persian Gulf. America's top military commanders in the Gulf favor an "incidents at sea" agreement with Iran that would reduce the danger of a confrontation. The big problem isn't the regular Iranian Navy, but the naval forces of the Revolutionary Guard.
The United States and Iran are playing a game of "chicken" in the Middle East. A collision would be ruinous for both. Each side needs to be careful to avoid miscalculation and act in ways that avert a crackup.
Telegraph: Bush setting America up for war with Iran
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
After Bush and Blair didn't bite on the British naval personnel being held by Iran, I thought their bluff had been completely called. It looks like not. And the switch from trying to work with the Shia to backing the Sunnis in Iraq is just one more sign that war is on the march.
And all those "surge" soldiers are now fully acclimatized to the Iraqi theater. And if Reid and Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats sign off on this, the split in the Democratic Party would be fatal to the 2008 hopes of any Democratic candidate.
And the funny thing is, Barnett completely doubts that the huge 2000 site bombing plan would even put a dent in Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. The only thing it would do is keep every ruling party in power.
Screw the dead Iranian citizens. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian mullahs, George Bush, and the Republicans are about to get their war on.
Building the Office of Emergency Management underneath the shadow of the Twin Towers would be like the ancient Romans building one on the crest of Mount Vesuvius. Yet this is what Rudy Giuliani made happen when he insisted that the OEM be built within walking distance of City Hall. An alternate location in Brooklyn (accessible by helicopter) was continually ruled out by this absolute requirement of Giuliani's.
And now we know why he was so insistent, thanks to a recent Village Voice article about Rudy's five big lies about 9/11. The OEM, you see, had a personal suite for the Mayor, and the Mayor took to using the personal suite often. He would take his then-mistress, now-wife by the hand and together they would walk over to 7 World Trade where a personal elevator would carry them to a Love Shack in the sky.
Like boss, like right-hand-man: Bernard Kerik was busted for many things, but one particularly salacious item was that he was using an apartment close to Ground Zero for his extra-marital dalliances. That apartment was meant to be used by exhausted 9/11 first responders, but while they were busy killing themselves in the toxic air of the Pile, Kerik was shacking up. And now we know where he got the idea.
So remember, folks, whenever you hear people discussing Rudy Giuliani, start humming "Love Shack", and then give your fellow Americans the scoop. The man is disgraceful and is not fit to be our president.
Fine. From now on, he's Mitt Roehm-ney for me.
Ernst Roehm founded the SA for Hitler, and he was a primary target during the Night of the Long Knives because of his open homosexuality.
Let's see if Roehm-ney objects to the term.
This is a reply to a poster who has claimed repeatedly that the WTC towers had 200,000 gal of water available to their sprinkler systems.
Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.
The sprinkler systems were capable of providing adequate water densities to areas as much as two or three times the typical design areas. Based on initial building damage estimates, the sprinkler and standpipe systems sustained considerable damage in the impact areas of WTC 1 and WTC 2. However, even if the sprinkler systems had remained fully operational and had been designed to protect higher hazard levels (e.g., Extra Hazard), the size, number, and extended area of the initial fires would have opened a large number of sprinklers, involving floor areas significantly larger than those associated with the required water demand for the design area associated with the installed systems. For the most part, the water supplies provided redundant sources of water for the standpipe and sprinkler system infrastructures. However, the typical floor level sprinkler systems were installed with a single connection to a sprinkler riser, providing the potential for single points of failure.
"...the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement."
I also direct your attention to page 32 (pdf 84) of the NIST's NCSTAR 1-4B report, entitled "Fire Suppression Systems," available as a PDF from my second link. On that page, the reserve tanks are described as two parallel 5,000 gal tanks, with a third 5,000 gal tank as a secondary on the system. That is 15,000 gal of water total for the upper floors in each building.
Go post disinformation somewhere else. We're interested in the facts around here.
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Wed Jan 03rd 2007, 03:31 AM
I make these comics at Stripcreator.com. There are lots of backgrounds and characters, but they are WYSIWYG. So the smoking dinosaur is my little substitute for Robertson, since the other dino was drinking from a coffee mug.
Posted by boloboffin in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Tue Jan 02nd 2007, 02:23 AM
note: this was originally posted at Smirking Chimp, where I usually post
George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. This is the purpose of the "surge". No amount of troops is going to fix Iraq; they couldn't if they tried. If Bush wanted to fix Iraq, he'd give them jobs. People who are employed in decent jobs can figure out how to live with their neighbors. More American troops in the Persian Gulf are not going to quell violence in Iraq any more than the ones already there are.
George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran. And there may be almost nothing we can do to stop it.
Iran has a single trump card - their nuclear program. I share the doubts that Bush can destroy the whole thing. There will be no repeat of Israel's surgical removal of the nuclear ambitions of Saddam Hussein. But Bush can take out enough of Iran's nuclear facilities to knock them back a few more years in the development of a feasible weapon. That is all he needs to bomb - that is, until Iran makes its move.
And that's what the surge is for. Ostensibly, it's about Iraq. Nobody thinks that Iraq needs more American soldiers. And it doesn't today. But Bush is sending them anyway, because he knows what he's about to do, and Iraq is going to need more soldiers when the Shiite forces sympathetic to Iran erupt in violence.
The first attack in this final war against Iran has already occured. You read about it, I'm sure. The White House excised a number of passages from an op-ed in the New York Times that talked about the history of this administration's secret negotiations with Iran. Any mention of Iran's critical help in forming the Afghan government now in place? Gone. Any word of Bush's constant double-dealing with the Iranians over people you may not have heard of, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Mujaheddin-e Khalq? Blacked out. And any mention of Iran's 2003 offer to put everything on the table, including recognition of Israel? The Times and the two authors of the piece, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, were threatened with criminal prosecution if they were to put words like that into print.
I know about all of this "secret" material, because none of it was secret. Leverett and Mann published their sources, all mainstream media with the exception of a report or two from Leverett's think tank, the Century Foundation. All of the things marked out of this op-ed by the White House are in the public domain. And yet the Bush Administration felt so threatened by this op-ed that they pulled out their little black markers and crossed out any hint of a peace-seeking Iran being played by a cynical America for all it could get.
Why? Because Bush is about to bomb Iran. Any talk of how Iran was making some genuine offers for peace (back before they were spinning any centrifuges) and how Iran was working with the United States to bring stability to the region, all of that is counterproductive. The Bush Administration isn't a slave to reality - it makes reality.
A reality to be ignored: Before 9/11, Iran had built up a large number of contacts among the various Afghan warlords. After 9/11, the Iranians worked those connections above and beyond in cooperation with the United States to stabilize Afghanistan under the interim government. James Dobbins, a participant in that accomplishment, explains:
Two weeks after the fall of Kabul, all the major elements of the Afghan opposition came together at a U.N.-sponsored conference in Bonn. The objective was to create a broadly based successor government to the Taliban. As the U.S. representative at that gathering, I worked both with the Afghan delegations and with the other national representatives who had the greatest influence among them, which is to say the Iranian, Russian and Indian envoys. All these delegations proved helpful. None was more so than the Iranians. On two occasions Iranian representatives made particularly memorable contributions. The original version of the Bonn agreement, drafted by the United Nations and amended by the Afghans who were present, neglected to mention either democracy or the war on terrorism. It was the Iranian representative who spotted these omissions and successfully urged that the newly emerging Afghan government be required to commit to both.
The second was even more decisive. The conference was in its final hours. The German chancellor was due to arrive momentarily for the closing ceremony. Yet we still lacked agreement on the central issue: composition of an interim Afghan government. The Northern Alliance was insisting on 18 of 25 ministerial portfolios, which would have marginalized other opposition groups. From 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. the four key envoys -- those from Washington, Tehran, Moscow and New Delhi -- worked along with the U.N. representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, and our German host to persuade the recalcitrant Northern Alliance delegate to make the necessary compromises.
Two weeks later President Hamid Karzai and his new cabinet were inaugurated in Kabul. The most senior foreign delegation was headed by Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who had stopped in Herat on his way in to pick up the one warlord, Ismail Khan, whose attendance and support for the new government was most in doubt. At the Tokyo donors' conference the following month, Iran pledged $500 million in aid to Afghan reconstruction, by far the largest sum from any neighboring state or developing nation.
(That's from Dobbin's May 2004 op-ed in the Washington Post, by the way. I had to buy a monthly pass to get it, but it's all open source, it's public domain. No classified information was released in the publishing of that article.)
Later on, Iran was asked by Karzai and Washington to keep a particularly nasty anti-American cleric Gulbiddin Hekmatyar in their country. Washington wanted Iran to keep him close, keep him safe. Tehran agreed, but they asked that Washington not accuse them of harboring terrorists. That would be a pretty nasty trick, don't you think? Ask a country to keep a terrorist under the equivalent of house arrest, and then accuse them openly of supporting terrorists?
Bush did so. Not six weeks after the Bonn negotiations, not a month after the Hekmatyar request, Bush declared Iran a member in good standing of the "axis of evil".
Hekmatyar left Iran soon after. As the redacted op-ed says, "the Islamic Republic could not be seen to be harboring terrorists." A year later, Bush got to designate him a terrorist. He's still in Afghanistan, and while he thinks the recent defeat of Republicans is proof that America will be pushed out of Afghanistan like the Soviets, he's endorsing George W. Bush for a third term. Bush is our Brezhnev, he says. He's great for business.
After all, look how Bush handled the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK). MEK is "an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq... that is on a U.S. State Department list of terrorist groups." Saddam used these guys to pull off attacks in Iran. The United States had been meeting regularly with Iran after 9/11, working out day-to-day matters in the region. The Washington Post reports:
At one of the meetings, in early January, the United States signaled that it would target the Iraq-based camps of the Mujaheddin- e Khalq ...After the camps were bombed, the U.S. military arranged a cease-fire with the group, infuriating the Iranians. Some Pentagon officials, impressed by the military discipline and equipment of the thousands of MEK troops, began to envision them as a potential military force for use against Tehran, much like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
We told Tehran we would target a terrorist organization, and then we decided that the terrorists might be able to help us take out Tehran. Let that sink in a minute.
Wow, Richard. You think?
The United States then told Iran on May 3 that they were going to disarm MEK. We also discussed exchanging prisoners, al-Qaeda members in custody in Iran for MEK prisoners in Iraq. But Armitage "ruled out such a deal":
..."because we can't be sure of the way they'd be treated," referring to the MEK members. He said officials were questioning MEK members to determine who had terrorist connections. "In my understanding, a certain number of those do," he said, adding that they will face charges.
Hold that thought. Hold the thought that Iran had been given our word that we would target the MEK. Hold onto the thought that we'd instead started touting them as a force to help topple Iran. Hold onto the thought that we'd then given our word about disarming these terrorists, although we wouldn't do any prisoner exchanges, not even for al-Qaeda prisoners.
You still don't have the full context, yet:
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces..., an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
Everything was on the table. Everything. Peace in the Middle East. George W. Bush had it in his hand.
What did we do? We scolded the Swiss diplomats who had passed it on to us, and then we started making nice with terrorists who hated Iran.
Nine days after the May 3rd meeting in which we promised to disarm MEK, terrorist bombings erupted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The US blamed Iran, and cut off talks. Some other countries tried to get the United States and Iran back to the table but failed.
Did you go to the link? Because today, it's clear who did those attacks: al-Qaeda. Hekmatyar's compatriots. Osama's army. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
Bush has never wanted peace with Iran. There will be no win-win situation with this president and Iran, because Bush is playing to win on his terms alone, the way that he was able to play Libya's recent capitulation to the West.
But Iran's not doing the Gaddafi shuffle. It's always had more support in the region than Gaddafi ever did. Iran's been a fly in the American ointment since 1979. And now, after being rebuffed repeated in a quest for peace, Iran is back on the nuclear path.
So people, get ready. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can talk all day long about the first hundred hours. We can start considering our options for the 2008 presidential primary. Hey, what are your plans for the New Year?
George W. Bush is going to bomb Iran.
Any references not linked in this piece are to Washington Post articles available only for a price on the web. They are from Leverett and Mann's citations, and are:
“Iran’s Leader Condemns Saudi Attacks,” The Washington Post, May 15, 2003
“Time to Deal With Iran,” The Washington Post, May 6, 2004
“In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue: Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity,” The Washington Post, June 18, 2006
“U.S. Ready to Resume Talks With Iran, Armitage Says,” The Washington Post, Oct. 29, 2003
“U.S. Eyes Pressing Uprising in Iran: Officials Cite Al Qaeda’s Link, Nuclear Program,” The Washington Post, May 25, 2003
We started with clear evidence that material from WTC 1 hit WTC 7, and now I've found photographic evidence for perimeter column sections in and around the WTC 7 debris pile.
So we have debris from WTC 1 hitting 7 (see OP),
debris from WTC 1 in and around the debris pile of 7,
both consistent with reports of severe gash in building 7 from firefighters,
an unusual structure on floors 5-7 due to construction over an existing Con Edison transformer,
diesel tanks capable of fueling the seven hour fires that raged inside the building on multiple floors,
and an ASYMMETRICAL collapse, progressive and timeconsuming (over 40 seconds).
The building fell due to a constant fire exploiting the damage to structure caused by the collapse of WTC 1 debris into WTC 7.
That's the recent video posted here: 9/11 Eyewitness. It actually has video from an angle most haven't seen before.
Anyway, there are mistakes in it that should be addressed in the thread devoted to it here. But I realized in watching the video that the camera angle would provide an ideal setup for seeing if any debris from WTC 1's collapse hit Building 7. I was not disappointed.
As you can see, at 38:08 (back it up to 38:00 for the full effect) a large chunk of debris comes billowing out of the pyroclastic cloud.
It hurtles right into the south side of Building 7. Clearly, plenty of debris from the falling North Tower could and did reach Building 7.
Not a DU Donor
Member since 2002
I'm Joseph Nobles, a lifelong Democrat. http://ae911truth.info @boloboffin is my Twitter feed
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
FL GOP tries to close state pension system to new workers, yet take THEIR pension at 2X accrual rate
FL GOP denies $51 billion federal Medicaid to poor, yet order cheap health care for themselves
Happy Mother's Day
I love DU2!
Florida Senate President Don Gaetz (R) ran company now accused of Medicaid fraud (Rick Scott redux)
Mediterranean diet cuts risk of heart dis-ease
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.