PCNs 
October, 2007

Cheers -
Mark

--- Kurt wrote:
>
> Paul's record far ahead of others
>
> September 30, 2007
>
> Like the team captains for a sandlot baseball game
> choosing their team members, American voters are
> being asked to choose our next president.
>
> To me, the only choice should be this man who has
> never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an
> unbalanced budget, has never voted for a federal
> restriction on gun ownership, has never voted to
> raise congressional pay, has never taken a
> government-paid junket, has never voted to increase
> the power of the executive branch, voted against the
> Patriot Act, voted against regulating the Internet,
> voted against the Iraq war, does not participate in
> the lucrative congressional pension program, and who
> returns a portion of his annual congressional office
> budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
>
> No other candidate has a record comparable to that
> of Texas Rep. Dr. Ron Paul.
>
> Don Seibold
> Wetumpka

So few emails and so much time. Why not ramble on? I'm trying for a bigger picture of contemporary politics.

Cheers - Mark

The war in Washington continues, as the “political haves” continually strive for an aerial strike upon Iran.

Americans make it possible for the nation, as an entity, to go about its business abroad, in such a way as to not affect the domestic population too directly, or adversely. With informational channels comes the American people, but our informational channels have formed their own powers and positions – their own institutions, also a position supportive of the political “haves” in our time.

The institutions of political “haves” and “have-nots” have formed out of an exercised division between Americans and their (worldly) leaders. Haves and have-nots may still peacefully coexist, such as when informational channels simply reiterate official spokespersons, but when new forces arise that serve anti-government sentiments upon people’s plates, these groupings of haves and have-nots simply entrench in their division.

We can’t even challenge our leaders legally, when we say they are not being challenged legally. For example, we can’t, as a country, seem to put together an impeachment proceeding against Cheney. I think that’s pretty bad. With the last president, you couldn’t stop impeachment with the rock of Gibraltar. You’ll always know when the political haves want something, and when they don’t.

The political haves are well separated from the rest. Don’t look for a dissenting party that has gotten its exercise. But the final twist of fate is to require 2/3rds of congress to overcome the White House. All congress needs is an excuse to be pathetic, and by God they’ll do it. This is the best excuse any representative ever had for not being able to get a thing done! They are staunchly entrenched in “group stink”, they smell severely of “conglomerating haves”, and they’re sitting in a pile of congressional “excuse patties”. Nobody did or does anything, or is responsible for anything.

This is all made possible by a “fourth estate”, e.g. a press, that sounds as much like official line parroting as it does anything else. They must be fat, too. A 5 year old could raise more cane that what the networks are shoveling these days.

At this point, there is an impasse between the American people and their representatives. These representatives will give up their offices later for what they’re doing now, a point to which they don’t seem to care, and be replaced by candidates who come to show the voters what kinds of assholes they really are. I’d bet more than half of congress wants what Americans don’t focus on and don’t really want to be concerned with; things like access and control in the Middle East. As far as I am concerned, the Middle East is news by the things our leaders do (along with Israel). ;-)

You just can’t get the American people behind their political leaders. You have to paint matters of state differently to make the people the ones who stand behind their leaders (when the people’s consent is needed), but public support is now lost. Presently, I think we’re standing behind the republic itself. We’re embodying faith in our system of government, because we’re on hold as a populace in the face of three quarters of this country or more opposing the people in office. Can we stop them before going into Iran? It seems to me we can’t. I also don’t get the impression that most of the people in Washington really care about repercussions in their future political careers. They seem either hell bent, or unstoppable. Congress is not responsible for anything that happens in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter), and Dick Cheney can’t be stopped. I smell proceeds coming from all of this.

We’re also being bankrupted. There is a record level of federal spending right now, and a lot of money is being printed (regularly), and not a lot of taxation, and in the private sector, there are huge amounts of personal debt, even more than mine. US paper is the subject of being dumped as reserve currency in a few different countries. The present politicians are locked in high spending and low taxation and there’s no getting off this ride. Both at home and abroad, I’m sure there are proceeds, if nowhere else then from the booming market of recent years. Will this be like watching rats jumping off of a ship before America comes to grips with its debt? Seems that way to me, at least until the end of this administration.

The ongoing state of war we now live in effectively replaces the cold war of days gone by. Now, the administration is going to have war powers as long as the GWOT is underway, and this affects our laws. The problems with congress being at odds with the White House may continue indefinitely, or until we can relieve ourselves of this condition.

This was also mentioned on Kieth Olberman's show... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/105530/63

Quotes... "For years, George Steinbreener and right wing nutcases running the New York Yankees have subtly and overtly attempted to turn a nonpolitical sporting event such as watching a baseball game at Yankees stadium into a 1930s style German propaganda event to promote right wing politicians, right wing views on religion, and right wing views on Iraq."

And then, perhaps to connect disdain for Giuliani with disdain for the Yankees, this writer says... "It's no longer take me out to the ballgame and as a Yankee fan, I find it disgusting."

Giuliani got booed twice at the game when his picture came up on the big screen. The time referred to on Kieth Olberman was during the national anthem - "inconsiderate (to the anthem), but telling", said Olberman.

This New York writer goes on... "Giuliani couldn't get elected dogcatcher in New York City today unless the only other candidate running was named Michael Vick. "

Cheers -

Mark

... "loosely based upon" ...

Dean's 2004 campaign has served as the basis for a broadway play, by Beau Willimon (who worked in the campaign), and now there is interest by George Clooney in hollywood, with Leonardo DiCaprio. What's DiCaprio going to do? Clooney is directing and producing.

Link

"Willimon, who is adapting his own work, held readings of the play during the summer in which Jake Gyllenhaal participated. The play, which Mike Nichols is slated to direct, is set to open in fall 2008, just before the presidential election."

Cheers -

Mark

Figure that one out... ?

If Bush can't go into Iran, he'll take credit for stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program (follow the bouncing ball).

Yesterday, Putin chats in Iran...

Russia, Iran harden against West 
Christian Science Monitor link
 "...Mr. Putin told a summit of five Caspian Sea nations, "We should not even think of using force in this region" – a veiled warning to the US not to strike Iran. But the Russian leader also sought a delicate balance on the nuclear issue, after a week of rebuffing top American officials over Washington's missile defense plans for Europe, and despite French and German leaders' hopes for a tougher line against Iran. ... Putin reassured Iran that the Bushehr nuclear reactor, a $1 billion energy project being built by Russia and dogged by delays, would be completed. But he refused to say when Russia might supply the needed nuclear fuel. Russia opposes a third round of UN sanctions against Iran unless presented with proof of a secret atomic weapons program. "

With a twist...

Turkey OKs military raids into Iraq 
LA Times Link
 "ANKARA, TURKEY -- Turkey's parliament today overwhelmingly approved a government request to launch cross-border raids into northern Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish separatists. Ignoring pleas from Washington, Baghdad and other foreign capitals to refrain from actions that could inflame the region, Turkish lawmakers granted the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan permission to send counter-terrorism troops into Iraq at any time during the next year. ..."

Another little twist...

China, Turkey Angry at US Moves 
Newsday Link
 "A Capitol Hill ceremony on Wednesday was to confer the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal on the Dalai Lama. The reaction from China, which reviles the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet's Buddhists as a separatist, was swift and angry.

Beijing pulled out of an international strategy session on Iran -- a subtle reminder to the Bush administration that China's vote will be the key to winning the new United Nations sanctions on Tehran sought by the United States.

Turkey, meanwhile, is considering retaliation for a House resolution labeling as genocide the World War I-era killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey denies the deaths were a systematic campaign to eliminate Armenians and considers a committee's passage of the resolution last week an affront. "

The congressional twist... Voting for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as "terrorists", as supported by Giuliani and Hillary... (and a couple others)

The Iran hawks 
Salon link 
Future historians may conclude that the key issue in the 2008 presidential campaign was not Iraq, but whether the United States should go to war with Iran. Sparring over Iran dominated the Republican debate in Dearborn, Mich., last week, while a Senate resolution condemning Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists divided the Democrats, some of whom (including Sen. Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) feared that it might give Bush a pretext to launch another war. Unexpectedly, Tehran has emerged as a preoccupation of candidates -- as a litmus test for attitudes toward war and domestic security. "

What they're saying in Malaysia...

Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear 
Reuters Link
 "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions. ..."

(---Drum roll please---) 
Bush: Turkey Defense & Victory With Iran 
Fox News link 
... "We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interest to send troops into Iraq," Bush said, shortly before Turkey's parliament approved a possible cross-border offensive. ...

"Putin has been quoted in press reports issuing a stern warning to the United States against using military action against Iran, and says he does not believe there is a serious Iranian nuclear threat.

"If those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him (Putin) clarify those. Because when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's interests to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

"I mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, then why do we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?" the president added. "

-------------- Thanks, George, for that great progress in rounds 1 and 2 at the UN. Huh? Whatever! Putin adds a lot of pressure to the idea of attacking Iran.

Cheers -

Mark

One thing that's also nice is a monster paper trail. This looks pretty damming pointing back to our friends in the White House with the "clean smog" propaganda. Propaganda? Say it aint so! Well, at least everything is getting organized into pointing at the same group of people (the White House). The EPA does say (in this article) they had a couple of warnings that went out, that were then "processed". 

From August 23, 2003 (S.F. Chronicle): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/23/MN300070.DTL

"In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

"That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.

"On the morning of Sept. 12, according to the report, the office of then-EPA Administrator Christie Whitman issued a memo: "All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC (National Security Council in the White House) before they are released." The 165-page report compares excerpts from EPA draft statements to the final versions, including these:

"The draft statement contained a warning from EPA scientists that homes and businesses near ground zero should be cleaned by professionals. Instead, the public was told to follow instructions from New York City officials.

"Another draft statement was deleted; it raised concerns about "sensitive populations" such as asthma patients, the elderly and people with underlying respiratory diseases. ... "

Cheers -

Mark

Dig, dig, dig. (Wasn't me) I cheated. I steal this stuff from different places.

This one from the house Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman, August 2003.

"The State of Science Under the Bush Administration" http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm

"... The resulting report -- Politics and Science in the Bush Administration -- found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. ..."

"... The Administration’s political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. ..."

Report (right-click to save) 
link (pdf)

It's quite a list. From the report, there are findings for; abstinence-only education, ANWR, breast cancer, condoms, drinking water, education policy, environmental health, global warming, HIV/AIDS, lead poisoning, missile defense, oil and gas, prescription drug advertising, reproductive health, stem cells, substance abuse, wetlands, workplace safety and Yellowstone national park.

It's conclusion... "Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted, or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking."

Well, at least someone in the dissenting party was on the stick!

Cheers -

- Mark

Hi, Happy days. Hey, now wait a minute. We’re talking about Iraq, so put yourself in a happy place. Think happy thoughts. All we’ll do is think happy thoughts, and when Iraq comes up, happy things will come from us.

Security? We haven’t what we need to do it. Let’s go back to our happy place.

Electricity? Yes, electricity may be possible, and so we can have electricity in our happy place. Ok. So let’s use our troops to guard the electric plants, to help make a happy place, and the water treatment facilities, and the oil wells, and the pipelines, and the borders, and the people, but only what we can, and let’s not leave our happy place.

--- I’ve had a few thoughts in recent years about what’s been going on in Iraq and what kinds of needs they have had. I have suggested outsourcing the security job to China, which helps me to imagine Iraq as a happy place, and I have brought up the idea numerous times of employing Iraqi civilians on public works projects. I think that would also help make a happy place (in the face of half the population unemployed). We fired the military, and our contractors haven’t been hiring the locals. In fact, they were importing slaves from other countries with no passports or rights, many of who died on Iraqi public works projects. Meanwhile, 150 various charitable organizations have been in there, with Iraqi civilians helping, working on public facilities. It was a year or two ago that the Chicago Tribune broke their investigation on local Halliburton subcontractors, inciting a congressional response and new legislation.

Can Iranians build a happy place in Iraq? I have suggested it before. It might embarrass me to say so. They’re neighbors, and they’re all Moslems.

For the 20th century, Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States have been the major players with Middle Eastern countries. Now, I suppose we have to consider China and… Iran? In the case of Britain, they sliced and diced it, and then there was Israel and reapportioning land from Arabs for Israeli expansion (repeat, repeat, repeat – until Palestinians can’t even get to their own facilities without going through Israeli checkpoints). We’ve taken the Arabs and their sand-like ways, and we’ve kicked them into the sand repeatedly so they wouldn’t be strong owners of their own resources, and we’re doing it now with the rise of Iran – that’s why Iran is such a hot potato in Washington. If the US (a global entity) doesn’t knock these people into the pre-nuclear age, or even to a despotic dictatorship, then they (a global entity) will have established their own regional hegemony. (Historical reminder: middle east activities of the present administration are born out of neo-con (PNAC) “planning” – gain access & control of world’s oil supply amidst up-and-coming 21st century oil supply/demand crisis through preemptive military strikes) While the PNAC doctrine declares diplomacy a path not worth heavily pursuing, this matter may become diplomatic when PNAC loses their cahones. Thankfully, they’ve fucked up everything they’ve done so far, and they’ve lost some personnel along the way.

The US doesn’t get the paper play from Iran now, because US petrodollars are not being used for Iranian oil – Iran has their own oil trading currency. 70% of the population of Iran is under 30, and many are getting an education and have moved to population centers where college educations can be found being applied, and it’s all really just warm and fuzzy in its own right, and I really don’t think it’s in Iranians best interests, or Americans best interests, or really anyone’s best interests, to conduct a tactical nuclear strike on 400 Iranian targets, or whatever the number is. 90% of our “smart bombs” in Iraq missed their targets, and half of those killed innocent civilians.

Cheers, Howard, for the news. The bit about “concerns U.S.” to me seems thin. I think we should have asked for Iranians to contribute to public works projects years ago (with good post-war planning). It keeps people on stage. Like us. All the world’s a stage, and the U.S. is merely a player.

- Mark

NY Times - October 18, 2007 Iraqi Contracts With Iran and China Concern U.S. By JAMES GLANZ

BAGHDAD, Oct. 17 — Iraq has agreed to award $1.1 billion in contracts to Iranian and Chinese companies to build a pair of enormous power plants, the Iraqi electricity minister said Tuesday. Word of the project prompted serious concerns among American military officials, who fear that Iranian commercial investments can mask military activities at a time of heightened tension with Iran.

The Iraqi electricity minister, Karim Wahid, said that the Iranian project would be built in Sadr City, a Shiite enclave in Baghdad that is controlled by followers of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr. He added that Iran had also agreed to provide cheap electricity from its own grid to southern Iraq, and to build a large power plant essentially free of charge in an area between the two southern Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.

The expansion of ties between Iraq and Iran comes as the United States and Iran clash on nuclear issues and about what American officials have repeatedly said is Iranian support for armed groups in Iraq. American officials have charged that Iranians, through the international military wing known as the Quds Force, are particularly active in support of elite elements of the Mahdi Army, a militia largely controlled by Mr. Sadr. An American military official in Baghdad said that while he had no specific knowledge of the power plant contracts, any expansion of Iranian interests was a concern for the military here.

“We are of course carefully watching Iran’s overall presence here in Iraq,” the military official said. “As you know, it’s not always as it appears. Their Quds Force routinely uses the cover of a business to mask their real purpose as an intelligence operative.” “This is a free marketplace, so there’s not much we can do about it,” the official said. At the same time, it is possible to view Iranian and Chinese investment as giving those countries a stake in Iraqi stability. The power plants could also boost a troubled reconstruction effort in Iraq. An American Embassy spokesman said, “We welcome any efforts to help develop Iraq’s energy infrastructure.”

“These proposals reflect the ongoing business opportunities that are arising in Iraq that American firms should be competing for,” said the spokesman, who asked not to be named because of standard protocol at the embassy.

It was unclear whether any American firms had tried to win the work, although Mr. Wahid said the projects had been submitted for bids. The embassy spokesman said, “We are unaware of any violations of principles of open and fair bidding.”

The agreements between Iraq and Iran come after the American-led reconstruction effort, which relied heavily on large American contractors, has spent nearly $5 billion of United States taxpayer money on Iraq’s electricity grid. Aside from a few isolated bright spots, there was little clear impact in a nation where in many places electricity is still available only for a few hours each day. Because the power plants are in largely Shiite-controlled areas, it is possible they may not face the same sectarian violence that crippled so many American rebuilding projects.

Mr. Wahid did not say how much the plant between Karbala and Najaf would cost, but at standard international prices a plant of the scale he described would be worth roughly $200 million to $300 million.

The outlines of all three agreements were confirmed by Thamir Ghadban, an expert on energy who is also director of the committee of advisers to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. But Mr. Ghadban said that the granting of the huge projects to rivals of the United States was not an indication that American companies were being excluded from consideration now that Iraqi oil revenues, which provide the basis for the Iraqi government’s budget, are largely paying for the reconstruction of the grid.

“There is no preference to the Iranians,” Mr. Ghadban said, citing the most obvious potential point of sensitivity for the United States. “There is no opposition or stance from the Iraqi government to bar American or Western companies. It is the other way around,” Mr. Ghadban said, indicating that he urged American contractors to bid for work in Iraq. Of the two new projects Iraq has agreed to finance, Mr. Wahid said, the largest is a $940 million power plant in Wasit to be built by a Chinese company, which he said was named Shanghai Heavy Industry. That project would pump some 1,300 megawatts of electricity into the Iraqi grid. For comparison, all of the plants currently connected to Iraq’s grid produce a total of roughly 5,000 megawatts.

He said that Iraq had already spent $12 million leveling the ground in preparation for the Chinese plant. The Sadr City project, which will include a small refinery, will cost $150 million and be built by an Iranian company, Sunir, Mr. Wahid said. That plant is expected to produce about 160 megawatts of electricity.

The Iraqi Electricity Ministry, which Mr. Wahid heads, is one of the few in the central government that has received praise for successfully spending much of the money allocated to it in the Iraqi budget for reconstruction projects. Because of security problems, a shortage of officials who are skilled at writing and executing contracts, and endemic corruption, many of the ministries have either left their rebuilding money unspent or poured it into projects that have had a marginal impact on the quality of life for Iraqi citizens.

Asked how he had managed to make progress within the bureaucratic morass of much of the Iraqi government, Mr. Wahid said he had simply learned to go it alone. Aside from financing, his main need from the central government was guarantees that Iraqi security forces would protect his workers and the electricity infrastructure. “Do not annoy me,” Mr. Wahid said was his main message to the government. “Let me do my work.”

Whether officials outside his government will be entirely pleased with the deals is a separate question. An international energy expert involved in Iraq’s electricity sector said he understood that the Sadr City project had originally been an Iranian initiative and that the Electricity Ministry had shown little interest at first.

The expert also said that the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, which investigates corruption, had already signaled that it would be investigating the project. Officials at the commission could not be reached for comment on Wednesday evening.

Mr. Wahid said the new power plants were part of a sweeping plan to increase electricity production on the grid, whose output has been creeping upward in recent weeks. He said that the ministry was in discussions on building another large power plant, one that would produce 600 megawatts, within the city of Karbala.

And the minister said that the first installment of another initiative he had long discussed, bringing diesel-powered generators into selected Baghdad neighborhoods, was close to having an impact.

Some 14 of the generators, each expected to produce 1.75 megawatts, should be arriving in the capital within weeks, Mr. Wahid said.

Alissa J. Rubin and Ahmad Fadam contributed reporting from Baghdad.

Note: forwarded message attached.

Hi, "9/11 Mysteries", which is one of my favorite 9/11 movies for informing folks, has shown up on Japanese television... 
http://www.ntv.co.jp/marumie/onair/071015/071015_03.html 

That's all Japanese text there, but a 'babelfish' translation of some of the text here... 

"2 airliners which are hijacked, crash to the twin tower of world trade center one after another. After that, building 2 of 110 floor building, all collapse, the life nearly 3000 was lost in consecution... Concerning this incident, as for formality announcement of government, "The twin tower of world trade center collapsed because fire occurs due to impact and the jet fuel where the airliner rushes" But, it was said here, that there is a many doubt, hypothesis of a certain impact was set forth from the specialists who analyzed that. "Collapse of the twin tower those due to blasting which used the explosive" ... "

The Reflecting Pool, a "docudrama" questioning 9/11 debuts in Florida... http://fliff.com/film.asp?filmID=1735&catID=16

Cheers -

Mark

> Okay Mark, You sent me this same message 4 times 

Y'All, When I included a link to a picture on my web site (at geocities) in the email, it rerouted the email to my bulk mail instead of my regular inbox. Wierd, eh?

That means links to my web site reroutes email to junk mail. Damn! I may have been reported as commander spamalot! Either that, or I have defended well against myself. Not sure how that works with a web site. Maybe that's any geocities site? I don't know.

The link below, pointing to CNN's website, doesn't turn this email into junk mail for me: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/glenn.beck/

Sorry for any inconvenience.

- Mark

A month ago, I mentioned the air force crisis as for unexplained reasons a B-52 with 6 nuclear warheads was flown from Minot AFB (North Dakota) to Barksdale AFB (Louisianna). This was nothing short of an astronomical screw up, which them prompted the air force to shut down for a day for safety purposes, one friday in late September.

There were a half dozen air force personnel involved in the strange flight. It appears that these men are now dead. Each his own way, in a hald dozen different incidents. These were all Minot AFB personnel.

http://www.legitgov.org/minot_afb_nukes_oddities.html

The other outstanding problem with what reporting on this topic there has been so far, is to also say that when the plane left Minot, it had 6 warheads on it, but when it arrived at Barksdale, it only had 5. Don't guess people aren't speculating on that one. If that 6th warhead exists, I'm sure it has to be (deployed) somewhere in the continental U.S.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/10/22/p20501

The neocons screwed the pooch when other airmen discovered the 5 smuggled nukes, and people are watching now, and Iran is becoming a harder target to hit, politically. The people in Washington are trying like hell, but aside from themselves, they are having a hard time creating support for an Iranian strike. An active engagement with Iran would give the neocons the support they would need to deploy the warhead domestically, but Iran has to be alleged as capable of such a deployment, to make the perfect patsy.

It appears to be as possible as anything else that the 5 warheads were destined for the Middle East, since Barksdale is where things depart for the Persian Gulf.

IIRC, there were two (uncomfirmed) foiled attempts at planting nukes in Iraq a few years ago, when we were looking for WMDs. This might turn out to be a foiled attempt to smuggle nukes into Iran. With nukes in Iran going off, people the world over might support a US-led invasion. The Americans might also then believe that a domestic nuke was somehow smuggled in by the Iranian Republican Guard, or some such thing, in the event of a staged domestic attack.

Cheers -

Mark