Sunday, January 28, 2007

Didn't Any Of These People Read 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'?

The Bush administration has a problem. Looking to start a war with Iran people still remember the lies they told about Iraq. Like the mangled maxim he muttered many years ago, "Fool me twice...can't get fooled again".
Already the dialogue has started to shift towards another end. Because they have been exposed, in part by Scooter Libby's trial, as manipulating intelligence on Iraq to give the appearance of a weapons program in Iraq that didn't exist, the whole "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons" crap has been been put on the back burner, and now has shifted to a "nuclear Iran",(mostly because Iran hasn't been found to be doing anything except building a nuclear power plant). Now, our failure in Iraq has been shifted from "terrorists and insurgents", to a Iranian backed insurgency. Yes, we are not fighting an occupation resistance, we are faced with an Iranian backed Sunni insurgency (which is strange, since most of Iran is Shi'ite).
So, for those of you who wish to see what Iran looks like before we nuke it back to the stone age, take a look here. Some people get what the troops surge in Iraq is all about, while others believe that it's all about winning. Or victory. Or not failing.
Thousands of people gathered yesterday to protest the war. Conspicuously absent were any Democratic presidential aspirants save Dennis Kucinich. John Edwards has stated:
"At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."

Which if it doesn't explicitly state he supports a military option against Iran, it certainly is implicit. Hillary Clinton, busy campaigning in Iowa has said in the past:
"A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

She also said that when she voted for the war in Iraq "I acted on the best judgment I had at the time." What if her judgement on Iran is wrong, too?


Kvatch said...

What if her judgement on Iran is wrong, too?

We'll soon see, won't we? The run up is looking remarkably similar--president insisting on diplomacy while the functionaries talk about 'all options being on the table'. Hillary is going to get to put herself on the record, again, very soon.

1138 said...

The Iraq "mistake" pretty much killed any credibility when it come to Iran.
It does not matter that Iran has or will make nukes - no so far as those will amplify any hint of a weapons program, or those who oppose any war.

Every nation in the middle east has now announced that it has or intends to start a nuclear program.
Invading or attacking Iran won't turn back that decision.
In fact to act against Iran will increase the speed at which these nations see that they too must have nukes to defend themselves against Israels admission that they have nukes.

The Democrats that voted to give this pimp, er President the power to go to Iraq should be off the table for '08 - they've shown their lack of ability to lead.

GraemeAnfinson said...

they are all liars. It is disappointing to hear Edwards jump on the bandwagon. I was starting to like him

azgoddess said...

one of my new years resolutions is to not listen to people who are idiots -- which is the entire white house -- huh - can't hear ya!!!

Kathy said...

Lew, did you see the poll over at that asks the public if they trust Bush when he says Iran is a threat? Last time I checked, more than 40% of the people said yes they trusted him.

navyswan said...

We're running out of candidates. Add Edwards to my 'hell no' list along with Hillary and Biden. Obama is still in the limbo stage. But, he may end up there too. Can we not find one candidate that isn't beholden to foreign interests or corporate America?